Getting very close to meeting Santer's 17 year warming test

William Astley says:
October 23, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Clearly the heat is going to be hiding in outer space. The cosmic microwave background radiation between the earth & moon will be found by modeling to equal 3.000000000000000000000000001 K instead of 3.0 K.
Problem solved.

I don’t understand why we insist on putting a linear trend line on the 1955+ temp data, when to do so is to ignore common sense and the curving pattern that, yes, does rise but in a cycle of ups and downs. We might do the linear trend if we were to believe, as do the warmists, that the linear driver of importance is CO22, but since we don’t, I can’t see a reason to do so without pointing out how badly the data fit a linear trend.
But since the warmists do not think that pre-1975 means anything, it is a bit of a straw man argument to even do any analysis of pre-1975 data. Better would be to treat the two periods separately, as the warmists would agree they should be treated, and show what that data handling does. After all, without the CO2 influence, we would say the data should be treated as it is, in the blocks and clumps that are most similar. Which gives us the pre- and post-1975 split anyway.
The warmists have moved the goalpost on the 15, 17 or even 20-year perriod of importance. They have successfully done this without compromising the importance of the previous 20 year warming trend, incidentally, a triumph of willful blindness and misdirection if there ever was one.

Janice Moore says:
October 23, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Thanks, that was the first time I heard big Ben. Cool!

The world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from climate change. It is just not what the Global Warming Alarmists want everyone to think it is.
The last Millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coolest of the current Holocene and about 1.5 °C cooler than the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. The UKMO CET record has lost ~1.0°C in the last 13 years since the year 2000 and winter temperatures have been a full 1.5°C lower in that period. More recently an extreme escalation of the temperature decline has occurred and is shown in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.
That is really significant and it really matters. That marked decline has lead to significant crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been mirrored in both hemispheres.
Assessing the sunspot records we seem to be rapidly heading for a Dalton minimum event (at best) in the next few decades. This will destroy agricultural productivity throughout the world.
But Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global Warming, (overheating), by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions.
The climate is presently changing, (as it continues to do naturally), to a colder phase, probably because of reducing solar activity and changing ocean circulation patterns. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.
Having made so many dire predictions of impending climate catastrophes from overheating, the advocates of Global Warming / Climate Change fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.
A cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and for mankind than any realistic amount of warming that could ever arise from future man-made CO2 emissions. Cold is a much greater threat than any moderate amount of additional warmth that could result from greater release of Man-made CO2.
National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for this potentially disastrous eventuality, by way of example, see.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/halltext/130910h0001.htm#13091045000001
Steve Baker: We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?
Gregory Barker: “I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.”
In spite of the enormous costs and appalling waste it is clear that the powers that be do not want to hear the good news that there is no real problem needing to be tackled.
It is now estimated that Climate Change policies in Europe alone will cost ~ £174,000,000,000 annually by 2020 or about 1.5% of European GDP.
But this figure does not include the attendant losses to Europe of industries already leaving the EU for regions with cheaper energy resources and more rational energy policies.

johninoxley says:
October 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm
I think Santer will not be coming for the warmists this Christmas.
_________________________
You get the thread’s Gold Star next to your name.

Sigh. You Tube search term: miracle on 34th street drunk santa.