Yet another cold Winter

[EternalOptimist]

I like how you need to mention things are peer-reviewed, the implication being most anti-GW papers are unsubstantiated drivel.

Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.

Tis true. There is a lot of tripe out there on both sides of the debate. Some of the sceptic blogs are cringe making. I think that as being a sceptic becomes respectable we are suffering from our own brand of bandwagon jumpers, and its not nice.

To give him his due, pj has made one promise, he will join the ranks of the sceptics if the recorded temperatures fall outside the IPCC forecasts for a significant period of time
cant say fairer than that

[BlasterBates]

I like how you need to mention things are peer-reviewed, the implication being most anti-GW papers are unsubstantiated drivel.

Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.

...talking of unsubstantiated drivel, that reminds me

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. "It's not acceptable ... [it's] not best practice," Jones said.

He acknowledged that the stations "probably did move" but insisted he did not know this when he wrote the 1990 paper.

[EternalOptimist]

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

Thats right. so the temperature record falls withing the bounds of natural variability, which is what the sceptics have been saying all along.

[BlasterBates]

Well it's a change of tune isn't it?

What we were told was cosmic rays have no impact at all on climate, and now it was a major driver over the last 1000 years, where glaciers were further back than they are today.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/a...swiss-glacier/

What else have the AGW also got completely wrong then?

...and meanwhile the temperature plunges globally, and more cold temperature records are broken:

AMSU-A Temperatures Trends from NOAA-15

http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/20...gas-shortages/

Blistering cold cracks records | Calgary & Alberta | News | Calgary Sun

Lets see where the global temperature go in the next couple of years.

But it certainly looks like AGW is in it's death throes.

[TimberWolf]

The bloody fan on my computer is driving me nuts. For some reason it comes on when the temperature drops below about 10 degrees. I thought cold was good for computers.

[pjclarke]

Straw Man.

What we were told was cosmic rays have no impact at all on climate

Told by who? Not the IPCC. If this were the case then CERN would not be spending millions researching the link. But they are so this is just a straw man argument.

[BlasterBates]

Why? Every decade since the sixties has been warmer than the last, fourteen of the fifteen warmest years in the series occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2009). The planet is now half a degree warmer than it was in the Seventies (and that is a LOT of extra heat in the system).



What possible difference will two more years make?

I notice how 1998 is the hottest year, and we seem to be climbing back down again.

The globe has warmed before...how else do you explain glacial variations, an argument you pointedly ignore because you have no answer.

Your graph just confirms it showing the later years creeping back down again.

Why don't you check out the evidence pointed out by Easterbrook pointing to warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

Why were the glaciers further back then?

There are cycles the go on for hundreds of years, which your graph just goes to support.

Amazing that climate twerps actually produce a graph that refutes their own hypothesis.

[EternalOptimist]

Why? Every decade since the sixties has been warmer than the last, fourteen of the fifteen warmest years in the series occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2009). The planet is now half a degree warmer than it was in the Seventies (and that is a LOT of extra heat in the system).



What possible difference will two more years make?

Why look at temperatures over then next couple of years ???
the answer is blindingly obvious. We need to track the actual recorded temperatures, to see if they match the predictions made by the IPCC and the models.

I would also like one thing to be clarified. Pachuri was rightfully villified for claiming that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 35 years. He accepted the error but has not told us when they will actually go into melt down. Maybe you can tell us ?

Or maybe you guys aren't interested now that it's not a useful tool to terrify the general populace.

[TimberWolf]

There's another month to go before [6 months of] winter starts too.

[DimPrawn]

There's another month to go before [6 months of] winter starts too.

True, but then we can look forward to the barbeque summer.