%26quot;global temperatures have been declining at a rate of 0.06 degrees a year for the last 10 years.%26quot;
Hadley directly contradicts this claim:
%26quot;A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.%26quot;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...
Is there any data which supports this, or is it just another to be added to the list of unsubstantiated and false denier claims?
Additional Details
1 week ago
Tomcat - that%26#039;s 65% of Jello%26#039;s timeframe (6.5 years, not 8.5) and less than one-third of his claimed slope.Apart from a brief drop in 1999-2000 to ~0.4 above the mean the temp has stated at or above 0.6, there is no drop.
Which side of this is acting like a religion that would be the side that takes things on faith without supporting evidence.
And for good measure this is the same period using Hadley centre data.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temper...
Yes 2007 was a slightly cooler year, but I find it funny that deniers keeps stating that the 150 year temp record isn%26#039;t enough (ignoring, as they do, the ice core data) and yet a small temp drop in 2007 is enough to state we are entering a cooling period.
And for those new to this I should point out that Tomcats %26quot;icecap%26quot; site isn%26#039;t a real science site it just made to look like one and is on the same level as wattsupwiththat %26amp; Newsbusters none of which have any other agenda than disinformation for oil companies.
And anyone who talks of %26quot;IPCC articles of faith%26quot; and then quotes a political blog as a reference has zero credibility. Tomcat: thanks for the round of applause, it seem UAH %26amp; RSS data was good enough for several scientific publications but I guess you know more than the Journal of Climate and Nature. Report Abuse And on what seems likely that you don%26#039;t seem to actually know what RSS %26amp; UAH are
RSS
http://www.ssmi.com/
UAH
University of Alabama
both seem to me far more science related than icecap Report Abuse
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (9)
-
You won%26#039;t find anything published in the scientific literature. If we are in the very beginning of a cooling trend, it is too early to tell. Therefore, there is not enough evidence for scientists to make claims (in published literature) that would reverse decades worth of trends, models, and predictions. If we are in a cooling trend, we will start to see publications coming out after there is substantial evidence for a cooling trend (probably 5-10+ years worth of data). Science is all about being able to make predictions, and you can%26#039;t predict anything based on a couple months, or even years, of abnormal cooling trends.
Edit:
Antarcticle
Oh boy, a real science site, clap... clap....clap. That is some funny stuff, I suppose you would like to provide us with a real science, site. The UAH satellite data is real science boy!
The RSS with a diurnal correction applied VIA a climate model calibrated by the surface record, I guess that%26#039;s your idea of real science.
and these charts-- and article
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02...
and even the GW scientists say we are %26quot;on hold%26quot; ----
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisc...
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_...
http://i29.tinypic.com/302oxli.jpg
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...
The anomaly last year was a 0.6 drop . The trend since 2001 is very clear on this NASA graph even though no trend line is present . You asked if there is %26quot;any%26quot; data and clearly , there is.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs... -
I will repost my previous answer since this is essentially the same question you recently asked. I wonder why AGW proponents use the last 25 years as any significant data. Why not start the trend analysis around 1000 AD. Oh, that%26#039;s right. That would not work as it was several degrees warmer then. Again, back to my original post.
You and I both know it all depends on the starting and end point. AGW proponents like to use the 1970%26#039;s as their starting point, or the late 1870%26#039;s. Why? Because these were periods where the temp was bottoming out. So any line starting at this point would naturally go up. So why do you cry foul when the AGW skeptics use data to prove their side? Sort of like the Chinese gymnast calling other gymnast cheaters.
The really funny thing is that everyone knows there was a little ice age that ended in the 1860%26#039;s (all except Micheal %26quot;The Scam%26quot; Mann). So the question is, coming out of an ice age, how much should we warm? So far about 1 degree. Seems about right to me.
As for NASA data, it is no longer reliable. Hansen has destroyed any credibility that agency had when is comes to AGW. Seriously, why would you need to %26quot;Adjust%26quot; temps? How about decommisioning those that need %26quot;adjustments%26quot;.