http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-glo…
Kano, interesting links.
Judging by the shrill, defamatory responses of the AGW Sockpuppets, the data is spot-on.
No. It looks like too little data to establish a longer-term trend.
What the graph tells us is that temperatures over a decade really don't change significantly. That doesn't tell us how that decade compares to previous decades. To do that comparison you'd need the data from 1992 to 2002. And to compare over a century you'd need the data from 1913 to 2013.
Oh wait. When you do that the graph has a positive slope. Which is why you consistently cherry-pick the bits of science you like (the data in the graph) while ignoring the bits you don't (a more complete graph spanning the last century).
2013-1997=16 years = not enough data for a trend, as has been pointed out to denialists who talk about the past 17 years, which is now 1996-2013, as if something happened 17 years ago. Does this look better?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Of course it doesn't: it is a graph fabricated by the science denying outfit the GWPF whose single purpose is to disinform people. It is not supposed to look like Global Warming and that is why the GWPF graph only shows a limited period of time.
In another one of your 'questions' you link to a Bob Tisdale graph which is based on the exact same HadCrut4 2013 data release. Tisdale's graph at least does not show a cherry-picked 17 year period putting the warming of the recent years in a better context.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/01-annual-comparison.png
It looks like a couple 404 errors to me. But as your rash of recent posts are from the gwpf my guess is that they are either doctored or cherry picked.
Edit: Why on Earth do you continue using sources that start at 1997/98? Yet you don't seem to understand that is extreme cherry picking. 1997/98 were the years of the most extreme El Nino on record. This increases surface temperatures by quite a lot for a couple years. Afterward there were rather extreme La Ninas with only moderate El Ninos. Unfortunately the NOAA site seems to be down right now so I'll posts this from another server.
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/figures/e...
I bet you don't even see the error you're making do you?
Edit: you still obviously do not see the error. You are taking a time period in your second chart that begin during an El Nino period, and many successive ones, and ends in a La Nina period, many successive ones. In your opinion do you not think this would skew the data just a tad? Think before you post.
In your second graph from 2002 to 2007 there was slight warming and a rather abrupt fall in surface temperatures. from midway through 2007 to now there was a standstill or a slight warming trend. If you look at the NOAA site, which si now up, you see El Ninos dominated the period up to 2007 with La Ninas dominating thereafter.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Seriously, what in the world are you thinking? Are you actually using this as 'proof' the planet is cooling?
That's just an 11 year period. But it does suggest that maybe high levels of warming are not very likely. Somehow hyperalarmist Joe Romm looked at charts like this and bet that temperatures would get warming in this decade. Looks like he is going to lose his bet, despite taking a weak bet for an alarmist like him of just .15C of warming for the full decade.
"You are cherry picking." Only the greenies are allowed to cherry pick.
"That is only surface temperature." Surface temperature was good enough for us in the 90s when the temperature was rising.
"That source wasn't peer reviewed." Only corrupted data by James Hansen and Phil Jones is accepted here.
"I have a different chart." Of course Jeff, you always do.
"You are lying." Of course it wasn't outright lying when they turned the AC off in the Capital Building when James Hansen gave his speech on AGW to Congress. Lying can only be used by the greenies. They are the true disciples of Goebbels. They earned that right, legitimately.
"Looks like that tracks with CO2 level to us." Gore said it and so we gotta go along with it.
"Move on." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
"What you see, isn't so." We are the experts at lying and we know what a lie is. So we proclaim that as a lie.
"You are just a bugger face and you don't know nuthin'." The last resort, name calling and intimidation always changes the environment.
Never hit a greenie up with specifics. It obviously turns their brains to cheeses.
Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."
They feel they are such good liars they can make colder into hotter. And they succeed in doing this with the Obama voters. But there are real intelligent people out here that are not buyers of their snake oil.
In direct answer to your question: NO! At least, not as Al Gore described and we are led to believe. How does that correlate to the rising CO2? IT DOESN'T!
It's funny how all your sources are propagandist blogs, yet you claim to read all sorts of things.
No scientist is claiming 'there is global warming' for money
but Big Oil is claiming 'it's not happening', for money
HadCRUT4 is surface temperature data. Does our planet only exist at the surface?
Who made the graphic in your first link? Here is what the UKMet has:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcr...
Looks like warming to me, even at the surface.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2…
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-glo…
The last ten years, RSS shows 0.09 degrees cooling, UAH shows 0.025 of warming, UAH is divergent from all other surface based measurements, so I would say the world is cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
I didn't make that up. That's the statement the first link gives. Move on.
links ok, but is that what the UK met office really said? All you have is the GWPF interpretation. You might as well go back to WUWT
links are bad
Peisner has absolutely no education in climate science and is certainly no authority/
Your other link is a stand alone graph and therefore has no bearing on nything
It looks like a couple 404 errors to me. But as your rash of recent posts are from the gwpf my guess is that they are either doctored or cherry picked.
Edit: Why on Earth do you continue using sources that start at 1997/98? Yet you don't seem to understand that is extreme cherry picking. 1997/98 were the years of the most extreme El Nino on record. This increases surface temperatures by quite a lot for a couple years. Afterward there were rather extreme La Ninas with only moderate El Ninos. Unfortunately the NOAA site seems to be down right now so I'll posts this from another server.
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/figures/e...
I bet you don't even see the error you're making do you?
Edit: you still obviously do not see the error. You are taking a time period in your second chart that begin during an El Nino period, and many successive ones, and ends in a La Nina period, many successive ones. In your opinion do you not think this would skew the data just a tad? Think before you post.
In your second graph from 2002 to 2007 there was slight warming and a rather abrupt fall in surface temperatures. from midway through 2007 to now there was a standstill or a slight warming trend. If you look at the NOAA site, which si now up, you see El Ninos dominated the period up to 2007 with La Ninas dominating thereafter.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Seriously, what in the world are you thinking? Are you actually using this as 'proof' the planet is cooling?
That's just an 11 year period. But it does suggest that maybe high levels of warming are not very likely. Somehow hyperalarmist Joe Romm looked at charts like this and bet that temperatures would get warming in this decade. Looks like he is going to lose his bet, despite taking a weak bet for an alarmist like him of just .15C of warming for the full decade.
"You are cherry picking." Only the greenies are allowed to cherry pick.
"That is only surface temperature." Surface temperature was good enough for us in the 90s when the temperature was rising.
"That source wasn't peer reviewed." Only corrupted data by James Hansen and Phil Jones is accepted here.
"I have a different chart." Of course Jeff, you always do.
"You are lying." Of course it wasn't outright lying when they turned the AC off in the Capital Building when James Hansen gave his speech on AGW to Congress. Lying can only be used by the greenies. They are the true disciples of Goebbels. They earned that right, legitimately.
"Looks like that tracks with CO2 level to us." Gore said it and so we gotta go along with it.
"Move on." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
"What you see, isn't so." We are the experts at lying and we know what a lie is. So we proclaim that as a lie.
"You are just a bugger face and you don't know nuthin'." The last resort, name calling and intimidation always changes the environment.
Never hit a greenie up with specifics. It obviously turns their brains to cheeses.
Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."
They feel they are such good liars they can make colder into hotter. And they succeed in doing this with the Obama voters. But there are real intelligent people out here that are not buyers of their snake oil.
In direct answer to your question: NO! At least, not as Al Gore described and we are led to believe. How does that correlate to the rising CO2? IT DOESN'T!
It's funny how all your sources are propagandist blogs, yet you claim to read all sorts of things.
No scientist is claiming 'there is global warming' for money
but Big Oil is claiming 'it's not happening', for money
HadCRUT4 is surface temperature data. Does our planet only exist at the surface?
Who made the graphic in your first link? Here is what the UKMet has:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcr...
Looks like warming to me, even at the surface.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2…
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-glo…
The last ten years, RSS shows 0.09 degrees cooling, UAH shows 0.025 of warming, UAH is divergent from all other surface based measurements, so I would say the world is cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/fro...
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
I didn't make that up. That's the statement the first link gives. Move on.
links ok, but is that what the UK met office really said? All you have is the GWPF interpretation. You might as well go back to WUWT
links are bad
Peisner has absolutely no education in climate science and is certainly no authority/
Your other link is a stand alone graph and therefore has no bearing on nything
