And guys, using one month to discuss climate isn’t what climate is. If I were you I’d read up a bit on the definition of the work CLIMATE vs. WEATHER.

I’d also look into factors surrounding lows in certain months, you’d be surprised to find out that 1992 correlates with the eruption of mount pinutubo, which spread a pretty large ash plume into the sky… remember all the beautiful sunsets?

As others have said above, the uncertainty associated with it shows that the down spike actually isn’t that statistically significant and is at worst at baselevel. Regardless if you plot a trend line through the center of it there is still an upward trend.

You never explained why accepting one year’s cooling is faulty reasoning, but 19 years of minimal warming is perfectly acceptable.”

“accepting”? I have, multiple times, explained why one years cooling does not offset 19 years of warming as a trend.

“If all you want is someone to admit that warming has occurred over the last 20 year period, I’ll give it to you — it has.”

Good. Then we agree.

Yes, the trend shown in the graph at the top shows it’s getting warmer.

Learn to read a graph before you use the data to show cooling.

Hawaii’s trade winds have inexplicably died down this year. Hilo HI has set record highs 5 times this summer. Global warming and climate change predicts that some areas will get warmer, others cooler, depending on how the winds and other conditions affect them.

Overall, though, as your “debunking graph” shows, it’s getting warmer, not cooler.

I brought a book in to class. I made up a whole set of vocabulary tests on it.

It was Otto Bettmann’s classic: The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible.

No complaints from anyone. (I left the book and the tests behind when I moved on. I heard they were still using both the book and the vocab tests three years later.)

I was very non-political as a teacher, but that was my blow in favor of modernity.

“I’m a middle school teacher …”

Pamela, you may or may not be typical of public school teachers. Consider this drawing that my fifth-grade daughter brought home from school one day in 1994.

Of course if you do that, you suddenly discover that the charts are REALLY BORING.

flat lines all of them.

I know, I know, that isn’t the party line. Viewing data as it relates to the absolute nature of the system is not in vogue these days.

Radiosonde measurements by the U.S. military began in the 1940′s. Temperatures prior to that were gathered from any source that was available and, especially prior to the 1920′s, not much was.

In 1860, for example, thermometer measurements were available for less than 16% of the globe. From that 16%, IPCC (Specifically P.D. Jones) magically derived a “Global” “Average” Temperature.

Or, if you’d prefer to see the true statistical uncertainty in the data (in a pretty, multi-colored graph) take a look at page 21 of P. Brohan, J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. F. B. Tett & P.D. Jones; Uncertainty estimates in regional and
global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850.

Look at some actual data!

Read some actual scientific papers!

Take an introductory statistics class!

Lennart,

You never explained why accepting one year’s cooling is faulty reasoning, but 19 years of minimal warming is perfectly acceptable.

If all you want is someone to admit that warming has occurred over the last 20 year period, I’ll give it to you — it has.

However, the fact that it has, has no more bearing on a long-term global trend than the fact that it has warmed in the Northern Hemisphere since February.

It shows just the opposite. Its already a fact theat the earth is warming. The only question left is how much of the warming is caused by burning of fossil fuels.

Practical then that you dismiss all that older than 50 years.

“Once such trend is established, nothing short of showing that the warming is unprecedented in scale and scope would convince me that such a trend is anything other than natural variation attributable to any of a multitude of causes.”

The word “natural” is meaningless. If humans caused it, it is still natural, as we are a part of nature. The word “natural” here is used by you to convincce yourself that your arguments are meaningful. They aren’t. They warming is happening and it has the same effects no matter how “natural” it is. That it is “natural” does not make it good.

Oh, really. Nobody?

“*OVER 20 YEARS WITH NO NET WARMING. I REPEAT, OVER 20 YEARS WITH NO NET WARMING*.”

“speaking of inconvenient truths, it is getting colder. ”

“I recently stated that there was no net global warming since ~1940, in spite of an almost 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.”

“Looks to me like global temps have been pretty much flat over the last 30 years.”

“But by the next election period in 2010, global temps will have in reality plummeted another 0.5°C,”

“And yet the AGWarmiots will soldier on bravely, with a trembly voice, saying “the warming is currently on hiatus, having gone into hiding deep in the oceans”. The warming trend is still there, they will say (and are saying), just is being masked by a short-term natural (gasp!) variation. Then, they will point to any and all “extreme” weather, and say, “see, this is unprecedented, and is the result of the hidden man-made GW.” And, they’ll add, “when the warming does resume, it will do so with a vengeance so we need to stop all this C02 pollution now, before it’s too late.” AGW religion is resilient, if nothing else.”

“I realy don’t think there is any long term trend.”

That’s enough I think. And that’s just going through a small fraction of the comments here.

Loads of people here have claimed there is no warming.

REPLY: You make a point, and I should have been clearer in the timeline and what thread I was referring to, I was considering the current thread. Yes it has gotten warmer in the past 100 years. No dispute there. How much is attributable to CO2 and errors in surface temperature measurement is the question.

Feel free to dispute the recent temperature trends, particularly the last 10 years.

Once such trend is established, nothing short of showing that the warming is unprecedented in scale and scope would convince me that such a trend is anything other than natural variation attributable to any of a multitude of causes.

Temperature data prior to 1940 is not statistically reliable.

What would be proof for you? When would you no longer be able to fool yourself that it hasn’t gotten warmer?

REPLY: Hey now slow down, nobody, including me, says it hasn’t gotten warmer. Don’t ascribe words not written.