“I’m just asking, mind you, so please don’t shoot the messenger, but what is the cite information for the 0.7 degree decline, the bringing us back to 1930, etc.? When I go to the Goddard site, I see a totally different summary from them for 2007. See the following:

GISS is playing its own ture. Also note that it is annual points. The .7 drop is in the following plot, where monthly points are shown

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gisstemp_aug_20081.gif

also have a look at this:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg

If you wait a bit the updated for september will come here , as soon as the institutes publish their numbers. GISS is the last, as they do a lot of back corrections before they publish.( change old data by mysterious algorithms).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Reply: Glad you are back with us at home and office. Hopefully no one was banning WUWT at office. – Anne

I’ve used the 5 year mean for the actual, except for 2007 where I’ve used the annual figure. The IPCC projected for 2007 is interpolated from the linear trend. The actual 2007 is just 0.039C below the projected, (versus a measurement uncertainty of 0.1C). Where have I gone wrong?”

In the eye of the beholder.

Have a look at the following figure which is from AR, not TAR (moving goal posts)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg

Forget about the IPCC spaghetti. Does the temperature trend look like anything sharply rising and catastrophic?

It is the IPCC lines that make the eye think of runaway heating, and the data does not comply.

You want to see rising, you see it. I want to see stability and I see it , except as Lucia has analyzed statistically, stability is what the data are saying and not rising. It is easy to fool the eye.

“Smokey

That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.

JP.”

mislabeled, not invalid.

Quoting from a later and more thorough examination:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

“So, what do these time series tell us?
To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.

Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.

Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. ”

Thus the fourth point: that the huge humidity feedback driven by anthropogenic CO2′s tiny contribution, predicted by the models, is invalidated.

Unfortunately since then we can see more and more phenomena related to the AGW theory and environmentalism that resemble the pattern of nazism upheaval in 20-30′s. Today again powerful geopolitical interests are using the science as a vehicle to indoctrinate the brains of young people. Hopefully the interests of the rising Third World will stop the consequeses of the AGW madness on global scale but the Western World is endangered – the history of Germany doesn’t tell good news for any state which follows blindly the AGW doctrine.

Why not?

What LBJ said about J. Edgar Hoover:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,906808-4,00.html

(Third paragraph.)

But then, I’ve always been a bighearted soul. #B^1

I was not trying to convince you on the error of your beliefs:), you are of course free to hold them.

I was trying to tell you that the poll was biased, because even I, strongly convinced that the IPCC is off on a limb, would answer in the positive in that poll.

Yes, ten years are enough. Why, they were even enough for Hansen in 1988 to jump on the warming bandwagon and strongly shout at congress. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

8 locations are enough if they are random and not cherry picked. A model that cannot predict whether irrigation or drainage will be needed the next ten years should be trusted for the next 100?

There is a very good mathematical reason why any linearized models as these GCM models are, will diverge from reality when applied to real data. If you know mathematics, follow this:

The GCM models make grids (boxes) of the atmosphere and apply linear approximations to the solutions of SOME of the differential equations that have to apply at the boundaries. Let us ignore SOME.

It is very well known that coupled differential equations lead to chaotic systems. This is because the beats of the different solutions that are pushing and pulling in mathematical reality can unpredictably build up enormously, or disappear ( the seventh wave, the 100th lightning,…). This means that linearity in any modeling can be reasonably applied for a limited number of time steps before the true nonlinear nature of the solutions explodes. These same models are used to predict the weather for next week, with different boundary conditions than when they are turned climate. It is evident for even non mathematical people that the time stepping of the models fails after ten days or so.

When the meteorology models are turned into climate models, i.e. even more linearization of the true solutions by applying many more average values at boundaries, this stepping problem does not disappear; the approximations will inevitably fail after some steps because the true solutions are drastically not linear. They do not fail in a week because of the averaging, but they do fail in ten years.

Now SOME, like the PDO. I have read the paper of Keenlyside et al, they are trying to include some of the SOME to save the sinking boat and keep up the AGW mantra. It cannot be done. The only solution is to go the chaos way, as Tsonis et al have done in a limited way ( PDO and the Atlantic Oscillation) in a fairly recent paper using neural nets for the modeling. Complexity is a subject that crosses over all scientific disciplines and is at the frontier of research at the moment. I have a hard time understanding the tools ( I am retired and follow interesting lectures in my region) but I think it is the only way to go for weather system modelings.

The planet is cooling and will most likely continue to cool making their propaganda even less palatable….i will enjoy watching them fall.