(Image Credit: WoodForTrees.com)
By Werner Brozek, edited and with introduction by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Your help is needed in building a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3, 4) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just such an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present an expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular updates. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should be images or images should instead be links, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input. JTF
—
Temperature Trend Analysis
By Werner Brozek
This analysis has three section covering 6 data sets, including GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, Hadcrut4, RSS and UAH:
Section 1, provides the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.
Section 2, provides the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.
Section 3, provides rankings of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT) to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
1. UAH Troposphere Temperature: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. NASA GISS Surface Temperature: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Wood For Trees Temperature Index: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. Hadley Center (HadCrut3) Surface Temperature: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Hadley Center (HADSST2) Sea Surface Temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS Troposphere Temperature: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadley Center (Hadcrut4) Surface Temperature: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Here they are illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Here is an alternate graphical illustration;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
(Which of these illustrations do you prefer? Are they too cluttered to include in one graph? If so, how can we make this more user friendly?)
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?)
Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced through each linked source.
The latest rankings for UAH can be found here.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here. (Others may also be found here)
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Here are the above month to month changes illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Appendix
In addition to the layout above, we also considered providing a summary for each temperature record, as is illustrated below for RSS. Please let us know if you find this format to be adventurous/preferred as compared to the category breakout above, and also please let us know if there are any additional analyses that might be valuable to incorporate.
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December). See:
Recreate graph here.
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See here.
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
—
Please let us know your thoughts and recommendations in comments below. Thanks Werner & Just The Facts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Testing table format
Data Source
Jan
Feb
Mar
UAH
-0.134
-0.135
0.051
RSS
-0.060
-0.123
0.071
Had4
0.288
0.208
0.339
justthefactswuwt says:
January 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm
No need for Excel, this is all in HTML, i.e.:
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_tables.asp
I got it to work, but it looks like the only way I can get it to you is by email.
By the way, the GISS site is back up, but instead of having the data for December, they even deleted the November data and published last month’s values.
.justthefacts wuwt says
…..if we can change the conversation from “rapid global warming” to we are in a “pause”, we are at least closer to reality. Assuming that temperatures continue to decline, then in the future we can start to message that the “dip” ……
the problem with that is that we are not helping those that are suffering…e.g.
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Anchorage_Elmendorf_Air_Force_Base/702720.htm
these data show severe cooling in Anchorage that has affected farming in Anchorage
(tomatoes etc.)
and nobody is telling those poor farmers that it is not going to get better…
Hello JTF,
The link for the RSS from Lubos is brand new from last time as he has now incorporated 2012. GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadcrut4 and of course WTI are not in for December. As soon as anything comes, I will let you know. Or if it comes Saturday, I can always post an update as a comment. Right after this, I will post my total entry. Please let me know if I missed anything and do not hesitate to improve any wording as that is not a big strength of mine. :- )
Has Global Warming Stalled?
Satellite Data Shows No Temperature Change for 15 Years as CO2 Climbed Rapidly
In order to answer the question in the title, we need to know what time period is a reasonable period to take into consideration. As well, we need to know exactly what we mean by “stalled”. For example, do we mean that the slope of the temperature-time graph must be 0 in order to be able to claim that global warming has stalled. Or do we mean that we have to be at least 95% certain that there indeed has been warming over a given period?
With regards to what a suitable time period is, NOAA says the following:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
To verify this for yourself, see page 23 at:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
In this parts below, we will present you with just the facts and then you can decide whether or not global warming has stalled in a significant manner. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on several data sets. The second section will show for how long there has been no significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2012 ended up in comparison to other years. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and tables will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to a 16 years and 1 month.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months. (goes to November)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months. (goes to November)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November.)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months. (goes to December)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to December) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
8. For a combination of the satellite data, namely RSS and UAH, the slope is flat since December 1997 or 15 years and 1 month. (goes to December)
The next link shows just the lines to illustrate #1 through #7 above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicates the relative times where the slope is 0.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend
The next link shows #1 through #5 above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9
The next link illustrates #8. Up to the present time, UAH has a positive slope from December 1997, however RSS has a virtually identical negative slope over the same time. So if we were to combine both satellite data sets, they would show virtually no slope since December, 1997 or for the last 15 years and 1 month. At the same time, CO2 levels have been climbing steadily since that time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets. The first number in each case was taken from WFT. However the second +/- number was taken from the site mentioned above. As far as I was able to tell, these numbers can only be obtained for whole calendar years. So on the average, you can add half a year to the given time period. The larger the magnitude of the second number relative to the first, the closer the period of no significance is to the next higher number. In every case, note that the magnitude of the higher number is larger than the first number. This means that we cannot be 95% certain that there has been any warming over the period indicated.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.126 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
Section 3
This section shows data about 2012 in the form of two tables. Each table shows the six data sources along the left, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Along the top, are the following:
1. 2012. Below this, I indicate the present rank for 2012 on each data set. If there is a * behind the ranking, it means that we only have 11 months worth of data and the December anomaly could change the final ranking.
2. Anom. Here I give the average anomaly for 2012 so far, and this will change slightly for those with a *.
3. warm. This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. Anom. This is the average anomaly of the warmest year just to its left.
5. Month. This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year. (With GISS, two months were tied for highest, namely January 2007 and March of 2002 at o.89.)
6. Anom. This is the anomaly of the month immediately to the left.
7. 11ano. This is the average anomaly for the year 2011.
8. rank. This is the new ranking for 2011. In all cases, 2012 was slightly warmer than 2011 and therefore pushed the 2011 ranking up by a unit.
Please insert table.
If you wish to verify all rankings, go to the following:
For UAH, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/
For RSS, see: http://motls.blogspot.ca/2013/01/rss-amsu-2012-was-11th-warmest-year.html#more
For Hadcrut4, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/
Note the number opposite the 2012 at the bottom. Then going up to 1998, you will find that there are 8 numbers above this number. That confirms that 2012 is in 9th place.
For Hadcrut3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Here you have to do something similar to Hadcrut4, but look at the numbers at the far right. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
For Hadsst2, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
Verify as for Hadcrut3. It came in 8th place with an average anomaly of 0.342, narrowly beating 2006 by 2/1000 of a degree as that came in at 0.340. In my ranking, I did not consider error bars, however 2006 and 2012 would statistically be a tie for all intents and purposes.
For GISS, see: For Hadsst2, see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Once the December value is plotted, check the J-D (January to December) average and then check to see how often that number is beaten back to 1998.
For the next table, we again have the same six data sets, but this time the anomaly for each month is shown up to the latest that we have. The last column has the average of all points to the left. But this could change slightly in those cases where December is blank.
To see the above in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2012/plot/uah/from:2012/plot/rss/from:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2012
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to December) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.126 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.
For RSS, the average anomaly for 2012 is 0.192. This would rank 11th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant at the 95% confidence level. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat. The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines for the 95% confidence limits. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slightly larger than a 5% chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/detrend:-0.3128/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend
UAH
The slope is flat since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months. (goes to December)
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For UAH the average anomaly for 2012 is 0.161. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1994/plot/uah/from:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1994/plot/uah/from:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend/plot/uah/from:1994/detrend:%200.3287/trend/plot/uah/from:1994/detrend:-0.3287/trend
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November.)
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
With Hadcrut4, the anomaly for the first eleven months of the year is 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/detrend:0.1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/detrend:-0.1998/trend
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for the first eleven months of the year is 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1994/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1994/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1994/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1994/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1994/detrend:0.1862/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1994/detrend:-0.1862/trend
Hadsst2
The slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
The Hadsst2 anomaly for 2012 at 0.342. This would rank in 8th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is the following
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend
GISS
The slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months. (goes to November)
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
With the GISS anomaly for the first eleven months of the year is 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/from:1996/detrend:0.2074/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/detrend:-0.2074/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1996/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend
Conclusion
Above, various facts have been presented along with sources from where all facts were obtained. Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts that legitimate discussions can take place. After looking at the above facts, do you feel that we should spend billions to prevent catastrophic warming? Or do you feel we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/mean:12/offset:-0.16
Table codes will come by email.
Werner Brozek says: January 14, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Table codes will come by email.
Included in your comment above and at the end of the article above for reference. Problem, tables are too big. A few options. 1, you could remove one column for the first table and split the second table into two parts/half years. 2, we could try to add some html that would shrink the text, e.g. http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/font.php but I’m not sure if this would help. 3, we could figure out some html to shrink the wasted space between the cell entries, i.e. cellpadding or cellspacing:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp
When would you like to publish this? If Fri, I won’t have much time to play, if Sat, Sun or beyond, I should be able to help figure out a more artful solution.
Guys, I eagerly await the expanded article.