Global Warming Thread XI

[David Flick]

So you agree: Global Warming is warming up BL

While the topic of global warming may be warming up BL.Com, the climate itself isn't warming. In fact, an internet article appeared yesterday (Sunday, Nov 28th) that declared satellites show there’s been no global warming for 12 years. The traffic on the forums has been pretty steady since March of '06. There has been at least one (sometimes 2 or 3) active global warming threads throughout the last 56 months. The threads have drawn 41,623 page views over that period of time. Which means that quite a few readers other than you, Keith, and I have have been reading the material.

Here's a graph that I believe is more accurate than any I've seen on Wikipedia. It shows four trends that have occurred since 1998: a) CO2 Level trend (up) b) Pacific Decadal Oscillation Trend (down) c) Satallite Global Temperature Trend (down) d) Solar Activity Trend (TSI) (down). Rather than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, an ever so slight global cooling has occurred over the past 12 years.

[KeithE]

This will be short since I'm in the passenger seat .

David is an idiot for believing a 11 year record.

Those that promulgate this cherry picking ignoring the years from 1850-1997 and july 2009 until today are irresponsible frauds.

You are have seen all the many plots that show all the DATA.

I desire that all of BL declare KeithE or David.

[KeithE]

This will be short since I'm in the passenger seat .

David is an idiot for believing a 11 year record.

Those that promulgate this cherry picking ignoring the years from 1850-1997 and july 2009 until today are irresponsible frauds.

You are have seen all the many plots that show all the DATA.

I desire that all of BL declare KeithE or David.

[David Flick]

This will be short since I'm in the passenger seat .

Hope your flight was a good one. Did you go through TSA security with the fancy-smancy scanner or the pat-down?

David is an idiot for believing a 11 year record.

So I'm an idiot?? Oh wow! You're really are angry now.

Those that promulgate this cherry picking ignoring the years from 1850-1997 and july 2009 until today are irresponsible frauds.

Actually, the irresponsible frauds are the AGW alarmists (who have been frauds throughout this whole debate). Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is nonexistent. Man does not control global warming (or cooling). Man cannot control climate change one way or the other. The irresponsible frauds are those who believe man has the capacity to control climate and temperature changes...

You are have seen all the many plots that show all the DATA.

Yes, and most of the DATA that show rapid or major temperature swings are based on cooked DATA. They've been cooking the books for years. Three days ago, the UK Met Office was cooking the books (calibrating a decade of data to account for newer sensors) again so as to guarantee that this year will be the hottest year on record. Yeah, cook the books and you can make it as hot as you want it to be. (Source...)

I desire that all of BL declare KeithE or David.

So will "declaring" for one or the other of us prove your case? Is the case for or against AGW to be decided by a vote of BL.Com participants? May I "declare" for myself?

[Jim]

Beginning today is this:
29 November - 10 December: 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16)/ 6th Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol - COP 16 & CMP 6 (UNFCCC)Cancun, Mexico

One year ago, the troops traveled to Copenhagen for the big IPCC meeting to set cap/trade loose on all the world, especially the USA. Of course, the huge vacation for the world leaders was rained upon by the news released shortly before that manmade climate-change was a huge fraud, notwithstanding the Nobels for Algore and Obamessiah, true believers in the Kool-Aid. If the dears from here and yon can manage not to get in the drug-wars, they should have a marvelous time in gay Cancun, a vacation just right for welcoming the winter season and dreaming up another crisis, which the president surely agrees should not go to waste.

[KeithE]

This will be short since I'm in the passenger seat .

Hope your flight was a good one. Did you go through TSA security with the fancy-smancy scanner or the pat-down?

David is an idiot for believing a 11 year record.

So I'm an idiot?? Oh wow! You're really are angry now.

Those that promulgate this cherry picking ignoring the years from 1850-1997 and july 2009 until today are irresponsible frauds.

Actually, the irresponsible frauds are the AGW alarmists (who have been frauds throughout this whole debate). Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is nonexistent. Man does not control global warming (or cooling). Man cannot control climate change one way or the other. The irresponsible frauds are those who believe man has the capacity to control climate and temperature changes...

You are have seen all the many plots that show all the DATA.

Yes, and most of the DATA that show rapid or major temperature swings are based on cooked DATA. They've been cooking the books for years. Three days ago, the UK Met Office was cooking the books (calibrating a decade of data to account for newer sensors) again so as to guarantee that this year will be the hottest year on record. Yeah, cook the books and you can make it as hot as you want it to be. (Source...)

I desire that all of BL declare KeithE or David.

So will "declaring" for one or the other of us prove your case? Is the case for or against AGW to be decided by a vote of BL.Com participants? May I "declare" for myself?

Thanks for your wonderful well wishes for a good plane flight home - but we drove, just arrived back home after a 12 hour drive from Cape Carnaval with spells of rain so dense it slowed traffic on I-65 to 20 mph, 38 deg drop in temp (FL to HSV) and then high winds in North Alabama with limbs all over my driveway. But alas that is not genuine well wishes, just buttery small talk before more nonsense.

You are correct I am angry. I'm glad OSU lost.

Your claims that the Met Offce are cooking the Hadley 2000's data books to say 2010 is the second hottest ever is pure BS; its been that way on their data site for a long time - no revision of the data is necessary. Your "source" is sketchy to say the least. As it is, there is no demonstration of cooking the books just your suspicious mind. BTW, the satellite data (by denialist Spencer/Christy) and the GISS data both have 2010 (year to date) the hottest ever. All these independent data sources have been given to you several times over the last 4 years. You choose to only use a cherry picked version of the satellite data choosiing to pnly display the data from a high (1998) to a low (2008)(with a little bit of 2009 until about July 2009 after which is grew ~0.2C). This is pure idiocy on your part (to be so fooled by denialists) and absolute fraud by the the denialist ideologues (unfettered capitalism is always best).

Effects from the CO2 is not immediate, it is a long term phenomena (as I have pointed out to you several times, even sent you a book). No more Mr. NIce Guy.

As for correlation (or parallel trends) of the PDO with global temp anomalies, it is NOT TRUE when you look at it on a long term basis.

Yeah sure cherry picking short term trends (1998 to 2009) there may be a parallel trend but it is nonsense as a long term "causal" agent. All the PDO does is redistribute heat (not trap it as CO2 does). STUDY THE DATA above and this article.

Lest you think calling you an idiot is outside the policies of this board, I will remind you I have "record of wrongs" with over 30 name calling rants from your keyboard (not exactly I Cor 13 material on my part; but more like John 2:13-22/Matt 21:15-18/Mark 11:15-19/Luke 19:45-48). Don't mess with God's earth or support those that do!

[Jim]

So you agree: Global Warming is warming up BL

While the topic of global warming may be warming up BL.Com, the climate itself isn't warming. In fact, an internet article appeared yesterday (Sunday, Nov 28th) that declared satellites show there’s been no global warming for 12 years. The traffic on the forums has been pretty steady since March of '06. There has been at least one (sometimes 2 or 3) active global warming threads throughout the last 56 months. The threads have drawn 41,623 page views over that period of time. Which means that quite a few readers other than you, Keith, and I have have been reading the material.

Here's a graph that I believe is more accurate than any I've seen on Wikipedia. It shows four trends that have occurred since 1998: a) CO2 Level trend (up) b) Pacific Decadal Oscillation Trend (down) c) Satallite Global Temperature Trend (down) d) Solar Activity Trend (TSI) (down). Rather than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, an ever so slight global cooling has occurred over the past 12 years.

One of the best articles and revealing charts I've seen! The public is learning and as the Congress changes, the manmade global warming will be treated as the nonsense it is. We should be thankful for the precious CO2; otherwise, we'd be picking icicles from our noses now. Not even the deforestation of the Amazon forest has allowed enough CO2 to escape to do anything significant about climate, not to mention that trees instead of roofs and concrete/tar once covered huge segments of the USA.

[David Flick]

So you agree: Global Warming is warming up BL

While the topic of global warming may be warming up BL.Com, the climate itself isn't warming. In fact, an internet article appeared yesterday (Sunday, Nov 28th) that declared satellites show there’s been no global warming for 12 years. The traffic on the forums has been pretty steady since March of '06. There has been at least one (sometimes 2 or 3) active global warming threads throughout the last 56 months. The threads have drawn 41,623 page views over that period of time. Which means that quite a few readers other than you, Keith, and I have have been reading the material.

Here's a graph that I believe is more accurate than any I've seen on Wikipedia. It shows four trends that have occurred since 1998: a) CO2 Level trend (up) b) Pacific Decadal Oscillation Trend (down) c) Satallite Global Temperature Trend (down) d) Solar Activity Trend (TSI) (down). Rather than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, an ever so slight global cooling has occurred over the past 12 years.
Global Cooling 12 Years & Counting Graph

One of the best articles and revealing charts I've seen! The public is learning and as the Congress changes, the manmade global warming will be treated as the nonsense it is. We should be thankful for the precious CO2; otherwise, we'd be picking icicles from our noses now. Not even the deforestation of the Amazon forest has allowed enough CO2 to escape to do anything significant about climate, not to mention that trees instead of roofs and concrete/tar once covered huge segments of the USA.

There's no doubt about it, Jim, the notion of manmade global warming (AGW) is complete nonsense. The idea that man possesses the capacity to control climate change is nonsense. It's incredibly arrogant to believe that man possesses the capacity to raise or lower global temperature. Never in history has he possessed the capability to do such a thing. Despite what James Hansen, Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and friends say, human activity and the burning of fossil fuels will not change climate temperature. Not in the past, not now, and not in the future...

[David Flick]

.
."Chicken Littles" of the United Nations Climate Change Conference agreed on Monday that climate change is threatening the survival of human beings and actions are needed to tackle the problem. About 25,000 of said "Chicken Littles" from governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations and research institutions of close to 200 countries gathered in Cancun, a resort city of Mexico. Here's the word straight from the alarmists' press. It doesn't get much more alarming than this:

• Climate change threatening survival of human beings: delegates

[Jim]

In balmy Cancun where they met
To save the earth, midst floods of sweat,
They spoke of CO2 as bad,
The worst of curses earth has had.

The presidente – Calderon –
Said human beings must hang on,
Survival is at stake, said he…
On Cancun’s streets especially.

The two-score-five of thousands heard
That Copenhagen had incurred
A temporary setback sad
When Michael Mann had just been bad.

The IPCC gurus know
The CRU guys have to go
Since they give climate a bad name
When only lies say it will flame.

Chorus:

But have no worry,
To your AC’s do not scurry,
Mother Nature’s in no hurry,
So all your fears let go and just bury!

[tune: Cocktails for Two (1934) – Spike Jones special]

[David Flick]

.
. Here's the latest on Michael Mann's broken hockey stick. Turns out that the University of Virginia was caught red-handed in telling lies. They lied about having Mann's documentation. Read about it below.

Hockey stick coverup, a sequel
By Lawrence Solomon December 3, 2010 – 10:05 am

More fallout over the University of Virginia’s mysterious conduct concerning the infamous hockey stick graph, the UN icon that purported to show that temperatures were steady over the last thousand years before shooting up in the last century.

The University of Virginia, which employed Michael Mann, the graph’s creator, and which received government funding that financed research for the graph, has been fighting attempts by investigators to learn its exact role in the entire affair. One of its manoeuvres: falsely telling a state lawmaker who requested information under the Freedom of Information Act that it no longer had access to the documents he requested.

That falsehood came to light after state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli decided to use the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act to compel the university to turn over documents related to Mann’s work. The university now admits it had the documents it refused to earlier divulge, but is still resisting handing them over. Finish reading article here:

[Chris]

Jesse Ventura's fascinating program on TRU TV, Friday nights, addressed a couple of topics last night.

1. Global Warming. How certain prominent figures are profiting in big ways from the "global warming scare". There is a lot of money being made by companies that are in the business of (allegedly) reducing carbon emissions. One researcher postulated that it is the SUN not men on Earth that is causing the effects we are observing. I.e., Man didn't cause it; Man can't fix it. He pretty much convinced me.

2. Water-hoarding, and reselling. Shocking pictures of Lake Mead (including a boat dock about 20 feet above the water line), which is receeding. Who is one of primary villains in the waterhoarding-waterreselling venutres....Daivd's hero, T. Boone Pickens! He is on tape saying he is gonna "get rich" with this venture...and he doesn't seem the least ashamed for it. I'm sorry, there isn't a direct link to this story at Jesse's web site.

[KeithE]

.
. Here's the latest on Michael Mann's broken hockey stick. Turns out that the University of Virginia was caught red-handed in telling lies. They lied about having Mann's documentation. Read about it below.

Hockey stick coverup, a sequel
By Lawrence Solomon December 3, 2010 – 10:05 am

More fallout over the University of Virginia’s mysterious conduct concerning the infamous hockey stick graph, the UN icon that purported to show that temperatures were steady over the last thousand years before shooting up in the last century.

The University of Virginia, which employed Michael Mann, the graph’s creator, and which received government funding that financed research for the graph, has been fighting attempts by investigators to learn its exact role in the entire affair. One of its manoeuvres: falsely telling a state lawmaker who requested information under the Freedom of Information Act that it no longer had access to the documents he requested.

That falsehood came to light after state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli decided to use the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act to compel the university to turn over documents related to Mann’s work. The university now admits it had the documents it refused to earlier divulge, but is still resisting handing them over. Finish reading article here:

Another take in the battle of words
If the denailist machine wants to snoop through old email, they better be ready to open their email servers as well. Where's Wiki?

And through it all, when the technical dust settled and Mann.etal redid their "reconstructions" without the Principle Components error in their 1998/9 papers, the facts remain that the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data as shown below:

More info about this plot given here.

The hockey stick long handle is not straight, but the 20th century blade remains!

Note that this is the same plot as David's second reconstructed plot that he (and I) have linked before. He just doesn't look at it carefully for the conclusion (in red above) that Mann, etal reached in their 1998/9 papers and subsequent reconstructions. The rate of increase is obviously and more consistently greater in the 20th century that in the upswing to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). BTW many/most scientists think the MWP was only local to Europe/Asia where the tree ring data/other proxy dtaa was gathered; it is not detected at other ice core sites.

Does David even realize that Mann's conclusions are about the rates of temp increase not the magnitude - I doubt it. He continues to say the MWP was hotter than today (more on that below) misising the point being made. Since I choose to believe in David's basic integrity, I say he is just dumb, duped, and data-aversed not dishonest.

There is clearly better (more self-consistent) paleo data in the 1900-1960 period - it is striking in its agreement withn itself(within ~ 0.1C range) than at other periods like the MWP (within 0.4C range) or the Little Ice Age (within 0.7C range). By "range" I mean the delta between highest and lowest data point on the colored lines at a given timeframe. And it is in good agreement with the instrumental data (black line), ever since the instrumental data began in 1850 until 1960.

Now after 1960 the paleo reconstructions (not shown in the above due to the unreliability of tree ring settling) the temps diverge up and down - click below for plot (too big for BL format):
Plot with post 1960 paleo data

Now if you cannot see the upward 20th century trends in the plot above and in the post 1960 plot linked, you are DATA blind; probably looking for what your pre-conceived wishes are whether you realise it or not.

Note that the reconstructions past 1960 are not considered valid by the paleo scientists not because they do not like the data (it still makes their case) but because they are honest enough to say tree rings take 50 years or more before they settle into a fixed tree ring spacing. This is the acknowledged "divergence" issue - acknowledged in Mann, etal's 1998 paper and all papers thereafter. That is why the first plot stops at 1960 (with an overlay of the much more reliable and precisely measured instrumental temp record- which is the most fundamental proof of GW). But the linked plot gives the 1960-2000 tree ring results anyway since detractors wanted to see it. But that didn't make the denialist case, so they are reverted to bitching about the Principle Component error that removed the MWP Mann's 1998/1999 and has been rectified since.

Now David likes to say the MWP temps were higher than today. Even that is not true according to the latest paleo data on which he rests his claim. Looking at the magnitudes of the paleo-based temps in 1960 (end of the color lines on the first plot above) the temp anomaly is higher than the temp during the MWP. Sure the highest blue line is more than the highest 1960 reconstructed data But a real data analysts/scientists looks first at the means (aka average). The average at the peak of the MWP is -0.15C while the average from the paleo data at 1960 is -0.10C.

Realize also that by 2004 (on that same temp scale) the global temp is +0.44C in 2004 and will be over +0.6C in 2010 (off the scale). From Oct 09 through Sept 2010 it was +0.655C and Oct 10 was higher than Oct 09 (0.62 vs 0.60C).
Real DATA, read the explanations at top and bottom.

And above all of those facts, recognize the paleo data is not at all the lynchpin of GW, there are many other indicators that mankind has affected our climate.
several hockey sticks
the human fingerprint

The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), but the science is settled! And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).

[David Flick]

.
.

1Another take in the battle of words
2If the denailist machine wants to snoop through old email, they better be ready to open their email servers as well. Where's Wiki?

1) Not witch hunt, Keith. It's a "witch hunt" only in the minds of the writers of the alarmist at Desmogblog.Com. There's never been anything close to a witch hunt wrt Michael Mann. Nobody who's anybody in genuine climate science puts any stock in either the Desmogblog.Com or the SkepticalScience websites. Both are nothing more than colorful purveyors of AGW propaganda. That said, Mann's hockey stick has been declared to be broken almost a decade ago (back in 2003). You can spin it until you're blue in the face but the honest facts do not change. More about this below...

2) So what, pray tell, do you think the skeptics ("the denialist machine") have to hide? It's ludicrous to assume that the skeptics have anything to hide. It's the alarmists who "hiding" stuff, refusing to honor the FOIA, and lying about it.

1And through it all, when the technical dust settled and Mann.etal redid their "reconstructions" without the Principle Components error in their 1998/9 papers, the facts remain that 2the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data as shown below:
Mann's 2nd "reconstructed" hockey stick graph
3More info about this plot given here.

1) Actually, through it all Mann's "technical dust" is little more than a long string of reconstructed propaganda. There's nothing technically correct about any of the hockey stick graphs. They have all been proven to be false. Think about it for a moment. The hockey stick graph was broken from the start. The fact that Mann was forced to go back and reconstruct it in the first place shows that it was wrong (He completely ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age). Otherwise there would have been no need to perform a reconstruction job. So he reworked it several times, pretending to include the MWP & LIA. And he still didn't get it right. There's nothing at all technically correct about any of the hockey stick graphs. For a more detailed explanation about this see my critique and the graph in the middle of this post.

2) That's false. It's not true that the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data. There have been at least three occasions when temperature rises have exceeded the current rate of increase.

The rate of current climate change (the speed of modern warming) by historical standards is not unique. According to IPCC data, the rate of temperature increase over the past 50 years was 0.13°C per decade. According to comparable data, obtained through instrumental measurements, a higher rate of temperature increase was observed at least three times: in the late 17th century – early 18th century; in the second half of the 18th century; and in the late 19th century – early 20th century. The centennial rate of warming in the 20th century is slower than the warming in the 18th century that was instrumentally recorded and slower than the warming in at least 13 cases over the past 50,000 years that were measured by palaeoclimatic methods. See item #9 at this source


3) Not true. You can post a dozen links to Mann's second Wikipedia-created reconstruction and the facts do not change. All of his graphs are wrong.

The hockey stick long handle is not straight, but the 20th century blade remains!

The hockey stick long handle is not straight. You're correct on that count. But the hockey stick graph itself is wrong (...as I explained above).

Note that this is the same plot as David's second reconstructed plot that he (and I) have linked before. 1He just doesn't look at it carefully for the conclusion (in red above) that Mann, etal reached in their 1998/9 papers and subsequent reconstructions. 2The rate of increase is obviously and more consistently greater in the 20th century that in the upswing to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). 3BTW many/most scientists think the MWP was only local to Europe/Asia where the tree ring data/other proxy dtaa was gathered; it is not detected at other ice core sites.

1) I've considered all of Mann's graphs etc. by reading what credible scientists & authors have written.

2) Not true. As I documented above, there have been at least three occasions when the rate of temperature increase was greater than the MWP. See documentation in item #9 at this source

3) Not true. It's weird how the warmists claim that the most recent warming trend is global while the MWP was local only to Europe and Asia. There's no way a global warming trend --which encompasses the entire globe-- could be localize to half of the same globe. Here's an article by a German scientist who debunks the notion that the MWP was localized:
• The Medieval Warm Period – a global phenomenon, unprecedented warming, or unprecedented data manipulation?
The scientist, Von Rudolph Kipp, says the Medieval Warm Period thesis contradicts the unprecedented warming. Here's an interactive global map that documents his case. Bottom line is that the only people who claim the MWP to be localized are the warmists.

1Does David even realize that Mann's conclusions are about the rates of temp increase not the magnitude - I doubt it. 2He continues to say the MWP was hotter than today (more on that below) misising the point being made. 3Since I choose to believe in David's basic integrity, I say he is just dumb, duped, and data-aversed not dishonest.

1) Yes, I realize that Mann focuses on rates of temp increase rather than the magnitude. But he's wrong, as I've documented in point #1 (above) in under the discussion of Mann's technical data. Either way (re: rates of temperature increase & magnitude), Mann is wrong.

2) Yes, I continue to say that the MWP was much hotter than today. I've documented that numerous times not only in this post but in others...

3) Think what you will, Keith. I can't control your thinking but my integrity is pretty well intact. You may consider me just dumb, duped, and data-aversed, but the majority of people in the general public agree with me...

There is clearly better (more self-consistent) paleo data in the 1900-1960 period - it is striking in its agreement withn itself(within ~ 0.1C range) than at other periods like the MWP (within 0.4C range) or the Little Ice Age (within 0.7C range). By "range" I mean the delta between highest and lowest data point on the colored lines at a given timeframe. And it is in good agreement with the instrumental data (black line), ever since the instrumental data began in 1850 until 1960.

Now after 1960 the paleo reconstructions (not shown in the above due to the unreliability of tree ring settling) the temps diverge up and down - click below for plot (too big for BL format):
Plot with post 1960 paleo data

1Now if you cannot see the upward 20th century trends in the plot above and in the post 1960 plot linked, you are DATA blind; 2probably looking for what your pre-conceived wishes are whether you realise it or not.

1) I'm not DATA blind. I'm able to distinguish the difference between alarmist climate change DATA and genuine climate change data.

2) I don't have pre-conceived wishes. The only wish I have in this discussion is that the truth be told. As a skeptic and the follower of skeptical climate change scientists, I desire more than anything that global warming alarmism be exposed for what it is.

Note that the reconstructions past 1960 are not considered valid by the paleo scientists not because they do not like the data (it still makes their case) but because they are honest enough to say tree rings take 50 years or more before they settle into a fixed tree ring spacing. This is the acknowledged "divergence" issue - acknowledged in Mann, etal's 1998 paper and all papers thereafter. That is why the first plot stops at 1960 (with an overlay of the much more reliable and precisely measured instrumental temp record- which is the most fundamental proof of GW). But the linked plot gives the 1960-2000 tree ring results anyway since detractors wanted to see it. But that didn't make the denialist case, so they are reverted to bitching about the Principle Component error that removed the MWP Mann's 1998/1999 and has been rectified since.

Including the Principle Component error, there isn't anything about Mann's work that has been rectified. It's all false. Climategate thoroughly exposed Mann. However it goes back much farther than Climategate. You can go all the way back to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who began probing into Mann's work (in 2002) and exposed it to be bogus. Had they not exposed the original hockey stick graph to be erroneous, Mann would never have gone through those all of those reconstructions.

Now David likes to say the MWP temps were higher than today. Even that is not true according to the latest paleo data on which he rests his claim. Looking at the magnitudes of the paleo-based temps in 1960 (end of the color lines on the first plot above) the temp anomaly is higher than the temp during the MWP. Sure the highest blue line is more than the highest 1960 reconstructed data But a real data analysts/scientists looks first at the means (aka average). The average at the peak of the MWP is -0.15C while the average from the paleo data at 1960 is -0.10C.

As I've already documented MWP temperatures were higher than today.

Realize also that by 2004 (on that same temp scale) the global temp is +0.44C in 2004 and will be over +0.6C in 2010 (off the scale). From Oct 09 through Sept 2010 it was +0.655C and Oct 10 was higher than Oct 09 (0.62 vs 0.60C).
Real DATA, read the explanations at top and bottom.

And above all of those facts, recognize the paleo data is not at all the lynchpin of GW, there are many other indicators that mankind has affected our climate.
several hockey sticks
the human fingerprint

No one other than alarmist websites like SkepticalScience and Desmogblog.Com has documented or proved that global warming has a human fingerprint.

The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), 1but the science is settled! 2And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).
1 False. Global warming science is not settled, Keith. Even Phil Jones admits the truth. Richard Lindzen agrees with Jones. Other sources declare the same. See here, here, here, here, here, and scores of other sources which you can easily google.

2 Not true. We've been over this numerous times already. There are no polls that declare that 97% of the scientists agree that the science is settled. I choose not to recycle my responses about those two bogus polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey"). If you or a lurker should wish to follow our discussion on those two polls, they can begin here and read all about it.

[KeithE]

I'll respond to the few non-bluster points David makes in bold red:

.
.

1Another take in the battle of words
2If the denailist machine wants to snoop through old email, they better be ready to open their email servers as well. Where's Wiki?

1) Not witch hunt, Keith. It's a "witch hunt" only in the minds of the writers of the alarmist at Desmogblog.Com. There's never been anything close to a witch hunt wrt Michael Mann. Nobody who's anybody in genuine climate science puts any stock in either the Desmogblog.Com or the SkepticalScience websites. Both are nothing more than colorful purveyors of AGW propaganda. That said, Mann's hockey stick has been declared to be broken almost a decade ago (back in 2003).
Only by the dm(denialist machine). The National Academy Sciences extensively studied the matter and their conlcusion

The basic conclusion of Mann etal (1998,1999) was that the late 20th century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has susequently been supported by an array of evidence that inlcudes large -scale surface temerature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming(Cook etal 2004, Moberg 2005, Rutherford 2005, D'Arrigo etal 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Amman 2006)


Source: Surface Temperature Reconstructions fro the Last 2,000 Years, page 115 which I own
You can spin it until you're blue in the face but the honest facts do not change. More about this below...Pardon me if I trust the NAS (and at least 8 other serious paleoclimatic researchers) more than David or his "spinninig" sources.

2) So what, pray tell, do you think the skeptics ("the denialist machine") have to hide? It's ludicrous to assume that the skeptics have anything to hide. It's the alarmists who "hiding" stuff, refusing to honor the FOIA, and lying about it.

1And through it all, when the technical dust settled and Mann.etal redid their "reconstructions" without the Principle Components error in their 1998/9 papers, the facts remain that 2the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data as shown below:
Mann's 2nd "reconstructed" hockey stick graph
3More info about this plot given here.

1) Actually, through it all Mann's "technical dust" is little more than a long string of reconstructed propaganda. There's nothing technically correct about any of the hockey stick graphs. They have all been proven to be false. Think about it for a moment. The hockey stick graph was broken from the start. The fact that Mann was forced to go back and reconstruct it in the first place shows that it was wrong (He completely ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age). Otherwise there would have been no need to perform a reconstruction job. So he reworked it several times, pretending to include the MWP & LIA. And he still didn't get it right. There's nothing at all technically correct about any of the hockey stick graphs. For a more detailed explanation about this see my critique and the graph in the middle of this post.
That bottom plot in "this graph" link above if you read it closely is only for Europe and is apparently only 1 reconstruction (chosen carefully no doubt). And tracing back David's sources leads to nowhere but "dm ville" circa 2000 not to any paper with referenced data. David, please provide the DATA beyond a "dm" screedal article and then look at ALL of the reconstructions like you yourself posted:

But look at it carefully as I explained. And recognize that all of the DATA after 2000 (most not plotted here) is above 0.4C and 2010 will be above 0.6C (probably above 0.65C) while even the outlier blue line is below 0.2C at the peak of the MWP. Can David admit to that? I doubt it.

2) That's false. It's not true that the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data. There have been at least three occasions when temperature rises have exceeded the current rate of increase.

The rate of current climate change (the speed of modern warming) by historical standards is not unique. According to IPCC data, the rate of temperature increase over the past 50 years was 0.13°C per decade. According to comparable data, obtained through instrumental measurements, a higher rate of temperature increase was observed at least three times: in the late 17th century – early 18th century; in the second half of the 18th century; and in the late 19th century – early 20th century. The centennial rate of warming in the 20th century is slower than the warming in the 18th century that was instrumentally recorded and slower than the warming in at least 13 cases over the past 50,000 years that were measured by palaeoclimatic methods. See item #9 at this source



David's use of intermediate sources cover up that there really is not any source behind them (unless David can find the paper or set of measurements). I look at item 9 (and related item 7) in David's "dm" article from the Cato Institute and they do not provide their sources. So I looked into if the IPCC had any "instrumental" DATA over the period mentioned. They don't; global instrumental records exist only since 1850. Records in UK do date back to the 17th century and that may be what this CATO author is refering to and he may be correct in those declarations of faster temp rises but only for the UK (I will check after church and golf(brrr)).

Insert (sunday evening): It was cold golfing that is for sure; in fact there was some snowflakes - but guess what, local.isolated in time data points do not move the long term global averages to any appreciable degree.

I checked into the longer surface temp measurements in Central England (as promised) and they started in 1659. Data is plotted below:

There were indeed upward trends in the periods mentioned by the CATO "dm" article at the periods they mentioned (late 17th/early 18th centgury, second half of the 18th century, and late 19th century/early 20th century). So this article is (as I was suspecting) trying to claim that these very local trends in the measured instrumental data were global data - they in no way qualified their statement and in context led the reader to believe they were "comparable" global data. "Comparable data", my a**. Shameful! End Insert.

But at any rate he is wrong that there are global periods with a faster temp rise than the 20th century according to the only known global instrumental records. Denialists are a tricky (I'd say lying lobbyists) bunch who do not tell the whole truth and their ever-so-eager-to-believe dupees don't cross-check adequately, just leap onboard the "dm" express.
3) Not true. You can post a dozen links to Mann's second Wikipedia-created reconstruction and the facts do not change. All of his graphs are wrong.

The hockey stick long handle is not straight, but the 20th century blade remains!

The hockey stick long handle is not straight. You're correct on that count. But the hockey stick graph itself is wrong (...as I explained above).

Note that this is the same plot as David's second reconstructed plot that he (and I) have linked before. 1He just doesn't look at it carefully for the conclusion (in red above) that Mann, etal reached in their 1998/9 papers and subsequent reconstructions. 2The rate of increase is obviously and more consistently greater in the 20th century that in the upswing to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). 3BTW many/most scientists think the MWP was only local to Europe/Asia where the tree ring data/other proxy dtaa was gathered; it is not detected at other ice core sites.

1) I've considered all of Mann's graphs etc. by reading what credible scientists & authors have written.

2) Not true. As I documented above, there have been at least three occasions when the rate of temperature increase was greater than the MWP. See documentation in item #9 at this source

3) Not true. It's weird how the warmists claim that the most recent warming trend is global while the MWP was local only to Europe and Asia. There's no way a global warming trend --which encompasses the entire globe-- could be localize to half of the same globe. Here's an article by a German scientist who debunks the notion that the MWP was localized:
• The Medieval Warm Period – a global phenomenon, unprecedented warming, or unprecedented data manipulation?
The scientist, Von Rudolph Kipp, says the Medieval Warm Period thesis contradicts the unprecedented warming. Here's an interactive global map that documents his case. Bottom line is that the only people who claim the MWP to be localized are the warmists. But 97% of the scientists most into and published on GW are "warmists" as you call them. And even if the MWP is global in nature, it still does not deny the rapid rising of temp due to mankind's activity we have seen inteh 20th century which has overtaken the MWP in both warming rate and absolute temperature magnitude. But that interactive chart is interesting; I'll study it when i get a chance. Thanks.

1Does David even realize that Mann's conclusions are about the rates of temp increase not the magnitude - I doubt it. 2He continues to say the MWP was hotter than today (more on that below) misising the point being made. 3Since I choose to believe in David's basic integrity, I say he is just dumb, duped, and data-aversed not dishonest.

1) Yes, I realize that Mann focuses on rates of temp increase rather than the magnitude. But he's wrong, as I've documented in point #1 (above) in under the discussion of Mann's technical data. Either way (re: rates of temperature increase & magnitude), Mann is wrong.

2) Yes, I continue to say that the MWP was much hotter than today. I've documented that numerous times not only in this post but in others...

3) Think what you will, Keith. I can't control your thinking but my integrity is pretty well intact. You may consider me just dumb, duped, and data-aversed, but the majority of people in the general public agree with me...

The DATA (Gallup poll in 2008-see Doran plot below) says 58% of public is warmist (it used to be higher before the dm got rolling with misinformation), 38% non-warmist and 14% undecided. That is not "the majority" of the general public. This is typical unsupported braggadocio from David - unsupported claim that he wishes were factual.
There is clearly better (more self-consistent) paleo data in the 1900-1960 period - it is striking in its agreement withn itself (within ~ 0.1C range) than at other periods like the MWP (within 0.4C range) or the Little Ice Age (within 0.7C range). By "range" I mean the delta between highest and lowest data point on the colored lines at a given timeframe. And it is in good agreement with the instrumental data (black line), ever since the instrumental data began in 1850 until 1960.

Now after 1960 the paleo reconstructions (not shown in the above due to the unreliability of tree ring settling) the temps diverge up and down - click below for plot (too big for BL format):
Plot with post 1960 paleo data

1Now if you cannot see the upward 20th century trends in the plot above and in the post 1960 plot linked, you are DATA blind; 2probably looking for what your pre-conceived wishes are whether you realise it or not.

1) I'm not DATA blind. I'm able to distinguish the difference between alarmist climate change DATA and genuine climate change data.

2) I don't have pre-conceived wishes. The only wish I have in this discussion is that the truth be told. As a skeptic and the follower of skeptical climate change scientists, I desire more than anything that global warming alarmism be exposed for what it is.

Note that the reconstructions past 1960 are not considered valid by the paleo scientists not because they do not like the data (it still makes their case) but because they are honest enough to say tree rings take 50 years or more before they settle into a fixed tree ring spacing. This is the acknowledged "divergence" issue - acknowledged in Mann, etal's 1998 paper and all papers thereafter. That is why the first plot stops at 1960 (with an overlay of the much more reliable and precisely measured instrumental temp record- which is the most fundamental proof of GW). But the linked plot gives the 1960-2000 tree ring results anyway since detractors wanted to see it. But that didn't make the denialist case, so they are reverted to bitching about the Principle Component error that removed the MWP Mann's 1998/1999 and has been rectified since.

Including the Principle Component error, there isn't anything about Mann's work that has been rectified. It's all false. Climategate thoroughly exposed Mann. However it goes back much farther than Climategate. You can go all the way back to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who began probing into Mann's work (in 2002) and exposed it to be bogus. Had they not exposed the original hockey stick graph to be erroneous, Mann would never have gone through those all of those reconstructions.

Now David likes to say the MWP temps were higher than today. Even that is not true according to the latest paleo data on which he rests his claim. Looking at the magnitudes of the paleo-based temps in 1960 (end of the color lines on the first plot above) the temp anomaly is higher than the temp during the MWP. Sure the highest blue line is more than the highest 1960 reconstructed data But a real data analysts/scientists looks first at the means (aka average). The average at the peak of the MWP is -0.15C while the average from the paleo data at 1960 is -0.10C.

As I've already documented MWP temperatures were higher than today.

Realize also that by 2004 (on that same temp scale) the global temp is +0.44C in 2004 and will be over +0.6C in 2010 (off the scale). From Oct 09 through Sept 2010 it was +0.655C and Oct 10 was higher than Oct 09 (0.62 vs 0.60C).
Real DATA, read the explanations at top and bottom.

And above all of those facts, recognize the paleo data is not at all the lynchpin of GW, there are many other indicators that mankind has affected our climate.
several hockey sticks
the human fingerprint

No one other than alarmist websites like SkepticalScience and Desmogblog.Com has documented or proved that global warming has a human fingerprint.

The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), 1but the science is settled! 2And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).
1 False. Global warming science is not settled, Keith. Even Phil Jones admits the truth. Richard Lindzen agrees with Jones. Other sources declare the same. See here, here, here, here, here, and scores of other sources which you can easily google.

2 Not true. We've been over this numerous times already. There are no polls that declare that 97% of the scientists agree that the science is settled. I choose not to recycle my responses about those two bogus polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey"). If you or a lurker should wish to follow our discussion on those two polls, they can begin here and read all about it.

Your lurkers out there should read what I said, not David's paraphrase. I said (just as the both polls show) that 97% of the scientists who are most involved and published (i.e. active climatologists) are "warmists" not as David misquotes me that 97% of "scientists" are warmists. The Doran poll shows this most clearly below to the question "Do you believe global warming has been significantly affected by human activity" that question David is so fond of answering "No, it is pure arrogancy that man could cause global warming":
.

As for "natural scientists" of any level of involvement in GW studies - 77% are warmists, 8% deniers of Anthropogenic Global Warming (almost 10:1 ratio); for the most involved/pubished climatologists that ratio is 46:1; iow, the more you know the more AGW one is. I stand by my claim that the scientific debate is "settled" with only a very few holdouts among the most knowledgable.

The rest of David's replies are unsupported bluster.

[David Flick]

I'll respond to the few non-bluster points David makes in bold red:

.
.

1Another take in the battle of words
2If the denailist machine wants to snoop through old email, they better be ready to open their email servers as well. Where's Wiki?

1) Not witch hunt, Keith. It's a "witch hunt" only in the minds of the writers of the alarmist at Desmogblog.Com. There's never been anything close to a witch hunt wrt Michael Mann. Nobody who's anybody in genuine climate science puts any stock in either the Desmogblog.Com or the SkepticalScience websites. Both are nothing more than colorful purveyors of AGW propaganda. That said, Mann's hockey stick has been declared to be broken almost a decade ago (back in 2003).
Only by the dm(denialist machine). The National Academy Sciences extensively studied the matter and their conlcusion
The basic conclusion of Mann etal (1998,1999) was that the late 20th century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has susequently been supported by an array of evidence that inlcudes large -scale surface temerature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming(Cook etal 2004, Moberg 2005, Rutherford 2005, D'Arrigo etal 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Amman 2006)
Source: Surface Temperature Reconstructions fro the Last 2,000 Years, page 115 which I own
You can spin it until you're blue in the face but the honest facts do not change. More about this below...Pardon me if I trust the NAS (and at least 8 other serious paleoclimatic researchers) more than David or his "spinninig" sources.

2) So what, pray tell, do you think the skeptics ("the denialist machine") have to hide? It's ludicrous to assume that the skeptics have anything to hide. It's the alarmists who "hiding" stuff, refusing to honor the FOIA, and lying about it.

1And through it all, when the technical dust settled and Mann.etal redid their "reconstructions" without the Principle Components error in their 1998/9 papers, the facts remain that 2the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data as shown below:
Mann's 2nd "reconstructed" hockey stick graph
3More info about this plot given here.

1) Actually, through it all Mann's "technical dust" is little more than a long string of reconstructed propaganda. There's nothing technically correct about any of the hockey stick graphs. They have all been proven to be false. Think about it for a moment. The hockey stick graph was broken from the start. The fact that Mann was forced to go back and reconstruct it in the first place shows that it was wrong (He completely ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age). Otherwise there would have been no need to perform a reconstruction job. So he reworked it several times, pretending to include the MWP & LIA. And he still didn't get it right. There's nothing at all technically correct about any of the hockey stick graphs. For a more detailed explanation about this see my critique and the graph in the middle of this post.
That bottom plot in "this graph" link above if you read it closely is only for Europe and is apparently only 1 reconstruction (chosen carefully no doubt). And tracing back David's sources leads to nowhere but "dm ville" circa 2000 not to any paper with referenced data. David, please provide the DATA beyond a "dm" screedal article and then look at ALL of the reconstructions like you yourself posted:

But look at it carefully as I explained. And recognize that all of the DATA after 2000 (most not plotted here) is above 0.4C and 2010 will be above 0.6C (probably above 0.65C) while even the outlier blue line is below 0.2C at the peak of the MWP. Can David admit to that? I doubt it.

2) That's false. It's not true that the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temperature ever recorded in the paleoclimatic data. There have been at least three occasions when temperature rises have exceeded the current rate of increase.
[size=85]The rate of current climate change (the speed of modern warming) by historical standards is not unique. According to IPCC data, the rate of temperature increase over the past 50 years was 0.13°C per decade. According to comparable data, obtained through instrumental measurements, a higher rate of temperature increase was observed at least three times: in the late 17th century – early 18th century; in the second half of the 18th century; and in the late 19th century – early 20th century. The centennial rate of warming in the 20th century is slower than the warming in the 18th century that was instrumentally recorded and slower than the warming in at least 13 cases over the past 50,000 years that were measured by palaeoclimatic methods. See item #9 at this source

David's use of intermediate sources cover up that there really is not any source behind them (unless David can find the paper or set of measurements). I look at item 9 (and related item 7) in David's "dm" article from the Cato Institute and they do not provide their sources. So I looked into if the IPCC had any "instrumental" DATA over the period mentioned. They don't; global instrumental records exist only since 1850. Records in UK do date back to the 17th century and that may be what this CATO author is refering to and he may be correct in those declarations of faster temp rises but only for the UK (I will check after church and golf(brrr)).

Insert (sunday evening): It was cold golfing that is for sure; in fact there was some snowflakes - but guess what, local.isolated in time data points do not move the long term global averages to any appreciable degree.

I checked into the longer surface temp measurements in Central England (as promised) and they started in 1659. Data is plotted below:

There were indeed upward trends in the periods mentioned by the CATO "dm" article at the periods they mentioned (late 17th/early 18th centgury, second half of the 18th century, and late 19th century/early 20th century). So this article is (as I was suspecting) trying to claim that these very local trends in the measured instrumental data were global data - they in no way qualified their statement and in context led the reader to believe they were "comparable" global data. "Comparable data", my a**. Shameful! End Insert.

But at any rate he is wrong that there are global periods with a faster temp rise than the 20th century according to the only known global instrumental records. Denialists are a tricky (I'd say lying lobbyists) bunch who do not tell the whole truth and their ever-so-eager-to-believe dupees don't cross-check adequately, just leap onboard the "dm" express.
3) Not true. You can post a dozen links to Mann's second Wikipedia-created reconstruction and the facts do not change. All of his graphs are wrong.

The hockey stick long handle is not straight, but the 20th century blade remains!

The hockey stick long handle is not straight. You're correct on that count. But the hockey stick graph itself is wrong (...as I explained above).

Note that this is the same plot as David's second reconstructed plot that he (and I) have linked before. 1He just doesn't look at it carefully for the conclusion (in red above) that Mann, etal reached in their 1998/9 papers and subsequent reconstructions. 2The rate of increase is obviously and more consistently greater in the 20th century that in the upswing to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). 3BTW many/most scientists think the MWP was only local to Europe/Asia where the tree ring data/other proxy dtaa was gathered; it is not detected at other ice core sites.

1) I've considered all of Mann's graphs etc. by reading what credible scientists & authors have written.

2) Not true. As I documented above, there have been at least three occasions when the rate of temperature increase was greater than the MWP. See documentation in item #9 at this source

3) Not true. It's weird how the warmists claim that the most recent warming trend is global while the MWP was local only to Europe and Asia. There's no way a global warming trend --which encompasses the entire globe-- could be localize to half of the same globe. Here's an article by a German scientist who debunks the notion that the MWP was localized:
• The Medieval Warm Period – a global phenomenon, unprecedented warming, or unprecedented data manipulation?
The scientist, Von Rudolph Kipp, says the Medieval Warm Period thesis contradicts the unprecedented warming. Here's an interactive global map that documents his case. Bottom line is that the only people who claim the MWP to be localized are the warmists. But 97% of the scientists most into and published on GW are "warmists" as you call them. And even if the MWP is global in nature, it still does not deny the rapid rising of temp due to mankind's activity we have seen inteh 20th century which has overtaken the MWP in both warming rate and absolute temperature magnitude. But that interactive chart is interesting; I'll study it when i get a chance. Thanks.

1Does David even realize that Mann's conclusions are about the rates of temp increase not the magnitude - I doubt it. 2He continues to say the MWP was hotter than today (more on that below) misising the point being made. 3Since I choose to believe in David's basic integrity, I say he is just dumb, duped, and data-aversed not dishonest.

1) Yes, I realize that Mann focuses on rates of temp increase rather than the magnitude. But he's wrong, as I've documented in point #1 (above) in under the discussion of Mann's technical data. Either way (re: rates of temperature increase & magnitude), Mann is wrong.

2) Yes, I continue to say that the MWP was much hotter than today. I've documented that numerous times not only in this post but in others...

3) Think what you will, Keith. I can't control your thinking but my integrity is pretty well intact. You may consider me just dumb, duped, and data-aversed, but the majority of people in the general public agree with me...

The DATA (Gallup poll in 2008-see Doran plot below) says 58% of public is warmist (it used to be higher before the dm got rolling with misinformation), 38% non-warmist and 14% undecided. That is not "the majority" of the general public. This is typical unsupported braggadocio from David - unsupported claim that he wishes were factual.
There is clearly better (more self-consistent) paleo data in the 1900-1960 period - it is striking in its agreement withn itself (within ~ 0.1C range) than at other periods like the MWP (within 0.4C range) or the Little Ice Age (within 0.7C range). By "range" I mean the delta between highest and lowest data point on the colored lines at a given timeframe. And it is in good agreement with the instrumental data (black line), ever since the instrumental data began in 1850 until 1960.

Now after 1960 the paleo reconstructions (not shown in the above due to the unreliability of tree ring settling) the temps diverge up and down - click below for plot (too big for BL format):
Plot with post 1960 paleo data

1Now if you cannot see the upward 20th century trends in the plot above and in the post 1960 plot linked, you are DATA blind; 2probably looking for what your pre-conceived wishes are whether you realise it or not.

1) I'm not DATA blind. I'm able to distinguish the difference between alarmist climate change DATA and genuine climate change data.

2) I don't have pre-conceived wishes. The only wish I have in this discussion is that the truth be told. As a skeptic and the follower of skeptical climate change scientists, I desire more than anything that global warming alarmism be exposed for what it is.

Note that the reconstructions past 1960 are not considered valid by the paleo scientists not because they do not like the data (it still makes their case) but because they are honest enough to say tree rings take 50 years or more before they settle into a fixed tree ring spacing. This is the acknowledged "divergence" issue - acknowledged in Mann, etal's 1998 paper and all papers thereafter. That is why the first plot stops at 1960 (with an overlay of the much more reliable and precisely measured instrumental temp record- which is the most fundamental proof of GW). But the linked plot gives the 1960-2000 tree ring results anyway since detractors wanted to see it. But that didn't make the denialist case, so they are reverted to bitching about the Principle Component error that removed the MWP Mann's 1998/1999 and has been rectified since.

Including the Principle Component error, there isn't anything about Mann's work that has been rectified. It's all false. Climategate thoroughly exposed Mann. However it goes back much farther than Climategate. You can go all the way back to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who began probing into Mann's work (in 2002) and exposed it to be bogus. Had they not exposed the original hockey stick graph to be erroneous, Mann would never have gone through those all of those reconstructions.

Now David likes to say the MWP temps were higher than today. Even that is not true according to the latest paleo data on which he rests his claim. Looking at the magnitudes of the paleo-based temps in 1960 (end of the color lines on the first plot above) the temp anomaly is higher than the temp during the MWP. Sure the highest blue line is more than the highest 1960 reconstructed data But a real data analysts/scientists looks first at the means (aka average). The average at the peak of the MWP is -0.15C while the average from the paleo data at 1960 is -0.10C.

As I've already documented MWP temperatures were higher than today.

Realize also that by 2004 (on that same temp scale) the global temp is +0.44C in 2004 and will be over +0.6C in 2010 (off the scale). From Oct 09 through Sept 2010 it was +0.655C and Oct 10 was higher than Oct 09 (0.62 vs 0.60C).
Real DATA, read the explanations at top and bottom.

And above all of those facts, recognize the paleo data is not at all the lynchpin of GW, there are many other indicators that mankind has affected our climate.
several hockey sticks
the human fingerprint

No one other than alarmist websites like SkepticalScience and Desmogblog.Com has documented or proved that global warming has a human fingerprint.

The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), 1but the science is settled! 2And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).
1 False. Global warming science is not settled, Keith. Even Phil Jones admits the truth. Richard Lindzen agrees with Jones. Other sources declare the same. See here, here, here, here, here, and scores of other sources which you can easily google.

2 Not true. We've been over this numerous times already. There are no polls that declare that 97% of the scientists agree that the science is settled. I choose not to recycle my responses about those two bogus polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey"). If you or a lurker should wish to follow our discussion on those two polls, they can begin here and read all about it.

Your lurkers out there should read what I said, not David's paraphrase. I said (just as the both polls show) that 97% of the scientists who are most involved and published (i.e. active climatologists) are "warmists" not as David misquotes me that 97% of "scientists" are warmists. The Doran poll shows this most clearly below to the question "Do you believe global warming has been significantly affected by human activity" that question David is so fond of answering "No, it is pure arrogancy that man could cause global warming":
.

As for "natural scientists" of any level of involvement in GW studies - 77% are warmists, 8% deniers of Anthropogenic Global Warming (almost 10:1 ratio); for the most involved/pubished climatologists that ratio is 46:1; iow, the more you know the more AGW one is. I stand by my claim that the scientific debate is "settled" with only a very few holdouts among the most knowledgable.[/size]

*The rest of David's replies are unsupported bluster.

* Actually, all my points were thoroughly documented by credible sources. Keith is stuck with alarmist propaganda...

[David Flick]

.
.Global warming debate between Keith and David: Begin round #113...

Keith, your so-called "rapidly warming world" is falling apart at the seams. As the propaganda fest continues in Cancun, the internet is ablaze with articles about how the alarmists are at their wits end and don't even realize it. One writer says, "The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over." I'll link to only one of the articles. (Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave).

As I see it, there are basically two kinds of global warming alarmists. One is the kind that wants to will global warming into existence. By hook or by crook, mostly by crook, they manipulate data to create the impression that global warming is manmade, rapid, and catastrophic. A prime example of the "hook or crook" alarmist is Michael Mann, the man about whom we have been discussing in our last several posts. Here's a link to an article about Mann and friends. I'm copying the entire article with points of emphases highlighted in red.

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted
By David Rose,
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010

A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961 - 1990 average.

World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an ever rising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'

Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.

Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.

According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.

Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.

The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.

When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.

But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.

That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.

Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.

The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.

There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)

But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.

Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.

One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'

After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.

The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?

The other kind declares that global warming is occurring on a grand scale but has no clue about what is actually happening. The example of this IPCC climate chief R.K. Pachauri. He is clueless to the fact that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years. Here's a recent (3 days ago) YouTube video wherein he exposes his ignorance. It doesn't get much worse than this for the AGWers...

[KeithE]

As normal. I've have pointed out the truth of the science involved and how the dm (denialist machine) has cherry-picked old data (e.g. passiing off Central Europe data as if it were global) and fought again totally resolved data analysis items(e.g. Mann's paleoclimatic hockey stick). David has been cornered by the DATA 112+ times and then David changes the subject and just turns to the latest of the dm screedal articles. Don't have time right now to cross-check this story but for starters:
1) The leadoff red paragrpahs is supposedly repeating a British Meterological Office (BMO) story back about 1 year ago predicting what would happen in 2010 (0.58C with their baseline period 1961-1990) of 0.58C and then claiming their predictions for 2010-2019 says half of those years will be about 1998 and half will not. First of all I thought a true denialist would never use a computer prediction. Second, if that were true the 2010's would still be hotter than the 2000's by about 0.1C which is close to the long term (non-feedback) GW trend since 1900. Third, I do not trust any article with characteristic sarcasm of the dm. They lie, big time. I'll have to find BMO article to cross-check the accuracy of this Rose fellow.
2) I did find the article from the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute: Climate change could push staple food prices up 130%. It does not ever claim the temp would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100 (which is above the upper end of the IPCC 2007 pojections of 1.8 to 5.9 C increase) "leading to rocketing food prices". Nor did it make any predictions for 2100. What it did say was:

The report, by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), warned that warming of even one degree by 2050 could play havoc with food production – with hotter, wetter temperatures cutting crop yields.

So much for the accuracy of this David Rose fellow (or is it David's Ruse), unless David can quote the IFPRI as ayig what Ruse said they said.

.
.Global warming debate between Keith and David: Begin round #113...

Keith, your so-called "rapidly warming world" is falling apart at the seams. As the propaganda fest continues in Cancun, the internet is ablaze with articles about how the alarmists are at their wits end and don't even realize it. One writer says, "The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over." I'll link to only one of the articles. (Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave).

As I see it, there are basically two kinds of global warming alarmists. One is the kind that wants to will global warming into existence. By hook or by crook, mostly by crook, they manipulate data to create the impression that global warming is manmade, rapid, and catastrophic. A prime example of the "hook or crook" alarmist is Michael Mann, the man about whom we have been discussing in our last several posts. Here's a link to an article about Mann and friends. I'm copying the entire article with points of emphases highlighted in red.

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted
By David Rose,
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010

A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961 - 1990 average.

World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an ever rising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'

Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.

Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.

According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.

Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.

The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.

When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.

But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.

That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.

Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.

The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.

There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)

But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.

Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.

One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'

After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.

The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?

The other kind declares that global warming is occurring on a grand scale but has no clue about what is actually happening. The example of this IPCC climate chief R.K. Pachauri. He is clueless to the fact that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years. Here's a recent (3 days ago) YouTube video wherein he exposes his ignorance. It doesn't get much worse than this for the AGWers...

I characterize the dm as "grasping for straws" and resorting to misrepresentations (aka lying) in face of the increased evidence for GW; 2010 data certainly cements the issue of GW as being a real threat.

[Jim]

After having a warmer than usual summer and fall, though not with 100-degree temps as was the case in 1936 on a multiplicity of days, many of them consecutive, my area is in the grip of a cold spell that has been around for days and is continuing. Today’s high will be 25 degrees below normal and we will not approach normal this week or even come close until maybe Friday, when things start down again. Europe is suffering miserably again. Climatology is perhaps the most obfuscatory of all the sciences and therefore virtually unsusceptible to any influences by people, who can do little more than measure it in various ways over long periods but without a clue as to what causes most things to happen in other than the shortest of time-periods such as involved in issuing warnings (about 15 minutes maximum, at that) before a tornado will strike. Hurricane forecasting has improved immensely, not in numbers expected but in paths that even then can’t be predicted with specificity until just hours before landfall. The Cancun Celebration of misinformation, propaganda and an obvious attempt to penalize this country (China by far the guiltiest emitter of the gas du jour or whatever, with India close behind) has become a laughingstock of the world but has also been a marvelous all-expenses-paid vacation for thousands. I’ve noticed virtually nothing about it in the U.S. media.

[Ed Edwards]

most Global Warming in the World is in the coldest portions. Again, it is the overall the earth average that is going up , but not at 0.6°C per decade rate but more like 0.4°C per decade NOW. Again, as I have said time and tim...e again: in the winter my desk top and my feet may vary 0.4°C - I can barely feel the difference. The human being is NOT capable of noticing the 0.4°C rise in world temperature over the decade 2001-2010 (First Decade of the 21st Century (2001-2100) and of the 3rd Millennium (2001-3000). So GW = global surface warming, must be measured by insterments and averaged by computers.

// if the earth as a whole was getting hotter then you would think that everywhere would be getting hotter \\

FALSE
1. It is the surface of the earth, where the sky meets the land & or ocean - that as a whole is what is consi...dered
2. Some predictions (not yet proved FALSE) are that the fresh water melting off Greenland will kill the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf Stream stops bringing warm Bahama water to GB & Ireland -- those places will be cooler then they are now. There is more going on than ONLY CO2 rises going on. Personally I expect that GB will bet colder and colder, they are 15° warmer in the winter than they aught to be. Go check the winter weather at NOVOSIBIRSK, Siberia, Russia -- that is what Ireland should be like Tee Hee - 18°F today (-12°C) in Novo...See More
Compare to Greater Manchester's high of 32°F (0°C)

[Ed Edwards]

Frank: // I don't need to show you. Its not hard to find out for yourself \\
I looked for myself, As a retired data examiner, the data convinces me that you all aught to do something about th...e heating of the earth's surface. I'm out of here in the next 20 years or less. You cannot control 99.99% of the sun's heat arriving at the surface of the earth. You cannot control 99.9% of the heat rising from the interior of the earth. You can learn to control enough of the emission of Carbon Dixoide (CO2) from fossil fuel burning to keep the earth's surface from rising more than 2°C by 2050. Remember, the species you save might just be the human race.

Frank: // Ed, everything you've talked about are hypotheticals that are tirelessly repeated to play on peoples fears. \\

I have REALLY been afraid for the past 45 years of my life (as an adult). First I invested my fortune in getting a job... where I could help the earth with my major job (I am retired). The problem was that nuclear war could destroy all life ('hypotheticals' differed from all humans with enough to eat to all forms of life on earth). but about 45 years ago i got interested in the HALF LIFE OF OIL (world view, actually includes all petro chemicals, also known as (AKA): fossil fuels. The half life (considering several hypotheticals) would be reached about 1985 to 2020 as seen in 1975) Now in 2010 it looks like the answer is 2012. Where did all the extra heat go? In 1975 I wanted to reduce the the output of air polutants, but the Ford salesman wanted to sell me a FAST CAR (not a gas ecnomical car).
Today there is more world-wide demand for fosil fuels then ever. In fact, the rate we use energy know will start the oceans boiling in AD 2350 ± 50 years -- the demand has to go down sometimes.
(fortunately? my problems cancel each other out -- an all out nuclear war will mitigate poputlation pressures, energy demand, and only kill 90% of the population of the earth. " Most people on the earth find this sollution unactractive" Ed said, underwhelming the opposition.)

[Ed Edwards]

Frank talking about co2: // That the fraction of global co2 production that we are responsible for, some 3 percent, is, for the first time, going to alter the geological course of the planet. \\
I hope so. Maybe there is nothing we can do.... But why use the oil (fosil fuel, some denialist say the fosil fuel is NOT fosil & doesn't count) that it took God 800 Million Years to make?

Kyle: // plan, save , change, argue all you want, in the end it makes no difference. unless the entire planet, including our governments change everything we do , nothing we say is going to matter.\\

Exactly Right. It is always right to do ...the correct thing & correct to do the right thing

Kyle: // so as the world changes, so will we. global warming isnt going to kil us \\

Exactly WRONG. IT really does not matter to me in only one Billion People die in the next 30 years or six Billion people did in the next 30 yers. I am one of them; I am going to die anyway. I do not have a dog in this race - I am going to die in the next 30 years. Actually I do. I have 7 living children (including step, & in-law). I have 12 living grand-children (including step & in-laws).

[Ed Edwards]

// But we were warmer in the medieval warm, with less co2 in the atmosphere, and over geological time we've been far warmer and far colder (so far as we know). \\

And, so far as we knw, we have not gone from far colder to far marmer ...in a 200 Year period. In fact, a pixil on a Geological time chart can easly equal 80,000 years (10MYA = 10 million years ago) or 400,000 years (100MYA)See More

My Surface Temperature Anomaly chart for 2008 shows
that Ontario Canada was between -0.2°C and
+0.2°C -- normal (average for 1951-1980).
My Surface Temperature Anomaly chart for 2001-2007
shows that Ontario Canada was between +0.2°C and +0.5°...C.
The world average was +0.54°C.
Seems to me that Ontario has fairly average warming.

[David Flick]

.
.This is absolutely hilarious. According to James Delingpole, there are ten sure Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening. The best sign may be #9...

[KeithE]

.
.Global warming debate between Keith and David: Begin round #113...

Keith, your so-called "rapidly warming world" is falling apart at the seams. As the propaganda fest continues in Cancun, the internet is ablaze with articles about how the alarmists are at their wits end and don't even realize it. One writer says, "The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over." I'll link to only one of the articles. (Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave).

As I see it, there are basically two kinds of global warming alarmists. One is the kind that wants to will global warming into existence. By hook or by crook, mostly by crook, they manipulate data to create the impression that global warming is manmade, rapid, and catastrophic. A prime example of the "hook or crook" alarmist is Michael Mann, the man about whom we have been discussing in our last several posts. Here's a link to an article about Mann and friends. I'm copying the entire article with points of emphases highlighted in red.

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted
By David Rose,
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010

A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961 - 1990 average.

World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an ever rising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'

OK I found the Met Office article that Rose adds the sarcastic commentary in green above.

Climate could warm to record levels in 2010

A combination of man-made global warming and a moderate warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as El Niño, means it is very likely that 2010 will be a warmer year globally than 2009.

Recently released figures confirm that 2009 is expected to be the fifth-warmest year in the instrumental record that dates back to 1850.

The latest forecast from our climate scientists, shows the global temperature is forecast to be almost 0.6 °C above the 1961–90 long-term average. This means that it is more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record, beating the previous record year which was 1998.

A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Niño was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption. We will review the forecast during 2010 as observation data become available.

Looking further ahead, our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010–2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far — 1998.

Background information

The 1961-90 global average mean temperature is 14.0 °C.
Global temperature for 2010 is expected to be 14.58 °C, the warmest on record.
The warmest year on record is 1998, which reached 14.52 °C, was a year dominated by an extreme El Niño
Over the ten years, 2000–2009, since the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error is 0.06 °C.
Interannual variations of global surface temperature are strongly affected by the warming influences of El Niño and the cooling influences of La Niña in the Pacific Ocean. 2009, with a provisionally observed temperature of 14.44 °C, can be compared with the identical forecast value of 14.44 °C.
The Met Office, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia, maintains a global temperature record which is used in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Each December or January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, issues a forecast of the global surface temperature for the coming year. The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as El Niño and La Niña, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the cooling influences of industrial aerosol particles, solar effects, volcanic cooling effects if known, and natural variations of the oceans.

Without the sarcastic comments added, the Met Office article going into Copenhagen 2009 tells a substantially different story. Morsels of verbatim quotes but complete failure to tell the whole story. That''s misrepresentation folks, big time.

What has happened in 2010? Are their predictions right? According to the Hadley data in 2010 so far, 2010 will only be the second highest ever - 1998 being 0.529C over the 1961-1990 baseline and 2010 being at 0.491C at the end of Oct and very unlikely to reach 0.529C by years end. But 2010 will be the second highest which still not good.

Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

But note that the other data analysis group (GISS) of this same instrumental data says that 2010 is very likely to be the highest ever at approx 0.65C and would be higher than the highest completed year 2005 (0.63C) and higher than their second highest completed year 1998 (0.56C).
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
GISS and the Met Office have differing homogenization approaches/data outlier rules and GISS uses a different baseline period (1950-1980) meaning their anomalies are about 0.08C higher than Hadley's. I am actually comforted that we have two independent data analysts with slightly differing results but both say the rate of temp increase (in the 20th century) is the the greatest ever and both are sounding the alarm without collusion. The results also agree with the staellite data in terms of basic trends (yep here it comes again).


Which basically means Roy Spencer would have to be in on the purported manipulation that David so often proclaims.

And as to the Met Office's other prediction of 2010-2019 being half over 1998 and half under 1998 that would imply that the average for the 2010's would be about the 1998 level of 0.529C. If that were true (and I not saying it will be - could be higher or lower), then the average temps (Hadley data) for the decades are/would be:

1970's - 0.0732C
1980's + 0.0983C delta= 0.1715C/decade = 0.0983- (-0.0732)
1990's + 0.2406C delta= 0.1423C/decade
2000's + 0.4114C delta= 0.1708C/decade
2010's + 0.5290C delat= 0.1176C/decade (projected - quite conservative imo)

Thus the temp increase rate lately (last 40 years) is over the commonly proclaimed 0.13C/decade since 1900. It is getting worse folks.