Sorry, Marcus, but I just can't see how Tom is saying that. Can you explain why you think he is please.

All of them, the differences between 1998, 2005 and 2010 are not significant statistically so which one comes out ahead depends on exactly how you do the measurement. A concept very widely understood in science.

"the differences between 1998, 2005 and 2010 are not significant statistically."

Would that count as a cessation of the earlier warming trend then ?

They are right because they are measuring their 'own thing', for sure.

And they all measure their version of 'global mean temperature' to within one hundredth of a degree?! Pah!

None of them ever quote an error margin in their public assertions of their figures: isn't the concept of stating error another concept widely understood by scientists, but strangely forgotten by those always striving to find the hottest/coldest/lowest/highest/whatever? It certainly underpinned my scientific training. Of course the differences aren't statistically significant!  Yet always such brouhaha over such insignificance?

How do you measure the monthly or annual mean in your garden?  I tend to round mine up to within one hundredth of a degree ..... but I could go down to one millionth if you think that'd be better?

Ever heard of the Met Office ? Here is a start for you

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/temp-records

http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm

Another CO2 follows warmth article but it seems logical to me.

Indeed it does make sense. If the world warms up permafrost melts, bacteria get busy and raise CO2. In turn, that CO2 warms the planet further. Its called a reinforcing feedback.

If you simply raise CO2 by burning fossil fuels then the world gets warmer, the bacteria get busy and raise CO2. In turn, that CO2 warms the planet further. Its called a reinforcing feedback.

So in the past we'd expect CO2 to lag the rise in temperature and now we'd expect it to lead. All perfectly logical.

I think the operative words are "not significant statistically".....

As you might be aware that doesn't mean the warming trend has ceased.

I would have thought you needed to see some statistically significant cooling before you can start calling any end to the warming trend?

Of course, your capacity for warping the facts to fit your pet theories probably means we have indeed been cooling for 12 years.....

Where have I said there is a cooling trend ? Why is a cooling required to support a cessation of warming?

12 years of no statistically significant trend means no warming and no cooling does it not ?

Which part of 'statistically significant' do you not understand?

I really don't know what point you were trying to make.  If you are suggesting that the warming trend has reached some sort of plateau then I would accept that this is what the data show at present.

The underlying implication of your posts is that we are entering a cooling phase. All I am saying is that this is not yet 'statistically significant' - your words and theories remain just that until there is a sustained reversal of the last decades of warming.

Thankyou. Still nothing very specific there about errors, though I acknowledge the HadCRUT3 series has a grey margin on the graph - a start.

Perhaps you can explain better than me how to reconcile the Met Office statement (from your kindly provided link) "Global records go back about 160 years, giving a long period from which to draw conclusions about how our climate is changing" with their other recent assertion that the "national series" of temperature records goes back only to 1910? You'd think some sort of comparison with previous data would have been possible and desirable after the extreme December. The (no doubt unintentional) implication is that we don't have the level of confidence about UK climate records over such a length of time as we do with global records! All this is, again of course, because of (unspecified) accuracy and (undeclared) error margins.

Well, the CET records go back to 1659.  Maybe the reference to 1910 is for England and Wales?

CET data is freely available on the internet and you can track the warming and cooling phases and the overall warming trend.  Even with a margin for error I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Of course, what happens here is not necessarily representative of global trends.

Actually I read that 1910 is for the UK as a whole. I don't know which statement carries more impact, that 'it was the coldest December since UK records began in 1910' or that 'it was the second coldest December since Central England records began 1659'. They are both true, with all the requisite statements about uncertainty, but I think it was probably said that way because it was extremely cold in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too (NI probably had the biggest departure from normal) so it covers more geographically.

Hi Stu, I'm sure that's correct - but I don't think that was the thrust of the point Marcus was making.

Oh Dear

Indeed and not surprising....

Not even sure what I'm looking at there. Got any blurb to go with that, Four?

Also, want to engage in the 'video' thread I started, or is Gandalf's assessment of you correct?

I assume you have discovered some blog site with a detailed plan of attack - with endless links to sites behind paywalls -  so decline to humour you


The above shows a projected temp graph asssuming the present strong La Nina affects global temperatures much like the earlier one.
I thought it self explanatory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110123131014.htm

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/11012305-researchers-find-smoking-gun-world-biggest-extinction.html

Well who'd have believed it? Burning coal (and the GHG's pumped out) could lead to run-away warming........

Good job we are not about to do the same eh?..............

Doesn't that talk about problems from coal ash and hardly mention CO2?
We aren't knee deep in coal ash last time I checked.

C'mon 4WD!

How many of the towns near you have had their buildings sand blasted to remove the centuries of smoke?

 Why did 'Bin waggons' used to be called 'ash carts'?, why do comp's buy ash from Coal stations for making fake stone etc.???

What would it be like if the areas producing didn't 'clean up after themselves'?

And where is all that 'soot' that some folk cite for melting the Arctic/Glaciers/Ice sheets come from???

Ermmm... none round here. The sooty stone effect is mostly localised in urban areas, not a global effect.
We are burning coal in a relatively clean way these days.
You can't make a meaningful comparison to uncontrolled burning ignited by volcanoes.
It's silly.

So , we get to the end of the carboniferous (and the majority of the coal measures are laid down) and one coal field is torched due to volcanics. We get to the Industrial revolution and how many coal fields do we start to mine?

When I look at some of the 'open cast' operations my mind boggles at the scale of things. When I look at the Chinese figures for extraction and burning my mind boggles.

If we look at the area of the Siberian traps and compare that to the area we have extracted since 1850 alone I think you'll see that we have taken a far greater area out than that impacted by the Late Permian event?

Then we move onto oil and natural gas (on top od the Coal usage).

As for not mentioning GHG's;

"Previous researchers have suggested massive volcanic eruptions through coal beds in Siberia would generate significant greenhouse gases causing run away global warming.

"Our research is the first to show direct evidence that massive volcanic eruptions -- the largest the world has ever witnessed -caused massive coal combustion thus supporting models for significant generation of greenhouse gases at this time,"

The info is out there 4WD so the good folk on the board can decide themselves what is 'Foolish' and what is not?