1998 was an abnormally hot year, making it a poor baseline, for the basis of comparison. Use 1999 (or 1997) as your baseline and all of a sudden the claims that there has been no warming begin to fall apart.

.. are calculated using a "smoothing" function, to remove the "noise" of yearly variations. Since almost all the years since 1998 have been warmer than almost all the years before 1998, the trend is still upwards.

By the way, according to NASA, 2007 is on track to be the second or third warmest year globally.

To understand the proper way to calculate temperature trends look at the IPCC AR4 WG1 report (Chapter 3 appendix).

Unfortunately this logic doesn't hold. Taking a year that was one of the hottest on record and using it as a baseline for the past 8 years isn't an accurate approach. Go back, look at the statistical trends and the standard deviations, and you will find the facts don't lie. We are living in a time of increasingly rising global temperatures.

It's all perfectly normal... nothing to worry about here.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

The only ones who think there's nothing to worry about is the federal government.

And shame on the National Post for buying into the climate science skeptics' pr manoevers. The Post should know that the argument that they helped publish is recycled junk science, and not credible, new information, as the deniers would have us believe.

It's one thing to make false statements, it's another thing to blindly repeat this message without the most basic of litmus tests for credibility. The National Post have just shown us their true editorial capacity.

I think it's important to remember that the National Post and probably most of the usual denialist suspects don't actually believe what they are saying. A few insane deniers might really believe this stuff, but their case is so absurd that it defies all reason and evidence.

But that's the best reason to ignore them: if reason and evidence don't work to affect someone's opinion, why bother? They're just propagandists and not susceptible to arguments, however perfect.

Might as recognize the cynics for what they are.

JTK

"a few insane deniers might really believe this stuff..."

Wow, what a thoughtful comment! The tone reminds me very much of what is found in some of the intelligent design sites. The biggest difference is that the creationists tend to express pity towards unbelievers wheras warmists lean more towards rage at thoughtful scientists who question Suzukian dogma.

Troll. Bore.

Rob would know, having started posting here by dishonestly claiming that the warmest global year was in the 1930s, although he knew it only applied to the small bit of Earth that the US is on.

Yet again, VJ steps in to perfectly illustrate my point.

That would require you to actually make a point. Better yet have finally figured out how to measure CO2 yet...or does that still escape you, as said its difficult for anyone to do easily?

Rob misses the point, which is his own dishonesty in discussing temperatures.

"Meanwhile, the global surface temperature for 2007 is expected to be fifth warmest since records began in 1880"

Hmm. That sort of covers the global bit, I think.

Rob, you ignorant fool. 2007 is set to be the warmest year globally on record:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm

It just happens to be one of the top 10 warmest on record within the US. Again, it proves that US data does not dictate what goes on worldwide.

Year 2007 will very likely be the coolest since 2000.

Simply get the data from
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt
and plot it, and you will see.

Sometimes it is good to trust blindly (e.g. on Rev Al Gore of the Church of Climatology), but often it is better to "trust but verify".

You notice how they flip to "millions of years" when they want to cover up general warming, and flip back to a scale of the last decade when they want to cover up individual points. That is a skill. Unfortunately, a 7-year-old can see through it. But it is a skill, nonetheless.

"Year 2007 will very likely be the coolest since 2000"

It also helps not to be able to calculate averages, or notice that December is missing.

Yup, 2007 is hotter than 2006 so far. And it is hotter than 2004, and 2003, and 2002, and 2001... But let's call it "cool".

The point of the whole story above is that nobody but an idiot chooses a peak way back and claims that this proves no trend, any more than they choose an extreme low.

If the deniers have a pencil or calculator, they should try calculating the decade averages or some other measure of their choice, from 1980 to now.

unless you claim that the data from the source I quoted is incorrect.

Of course, December data isn't in yet, but unless the last few days gets very warm, it is clear that 2007 is the coolest since 2000.

I, and those like me who understand science, realize that this does not constitute a climate trend. But Stephen apparently thinks it significant that bbc thought (incorrectly) that 2007 would become a very warm year, which is why I pointed out this error.

Here are the latest data from NASA GISS:

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/nasa-2007.jpg

So unless your computer screen has been turned 180 degrees it shows that 1998 is not the warmest year. It also shows that your claim that temperatures have dropped since 1998 to be an out and out lie (surprise surprise).

Trying being honest once in a while and people might give you a little bit of respect.

Ian Forrester

You rely on some ready made graph, from a data source you do not know, with data you haven't checked.

I rely on actual data, from the most objective of sources (i.e. satellite measurements), and I make my own analysis (and my own graphs).

And you call me a liar? What a joke.

And you are qualified to interpret the data? "Ready-made graph"???? Come on, JIK, climate science is a complex and sophisticated field and people work their entire professional lives to understand the subtleties. You are going to create your own graph and declare them all to be irrelevant? Give me a break. Compared to the folks at NASA and NOAA you're in kindergarten working with a big fat crayon.

At a certain point we have to admit that people working in the field on a daily basis are in a better position to see the Big Picture -- ie, how what they are doing relates to what so-and-so at the next university is doing and what the implications might be etc. I'm pretty smart myself, but I would never presume to barge in and have my analysis of climate science taken seriously at the IPCC level.

Raw data is nothing until it is reviewed in context.

in this case.

Of course, sometimes there is a need for pretty advanced data management and statistical analysis, in order to extract useful information out of complex data sets (such as tree ring analysis).

But that is not the case here.

The satellite data sets I use provide monthly global temperature devations (from some reference level), from Jan 1979 to Nov 2007 (as of today).
It is then fairly trivial to import into e.g. Excel, plot graphs, calculate annual averages, generate trend lines, moving averages, and so on.

And, in this particular case, the issue is very simple:
- Is Stephen's statement "2007 is set to be the warmest year globally on record" correct or not?`

Anyone with some statistical and mathematical competence and common sense can use this data set to quickly determine that Stephen's statement is, in fact, incorrect.

JIK, a long list of "numbers" is meaningless in today's world of wonderfully coloured computer graphics. Have a look at the nice pictorial representation of the data I have presented below.

You do realize that the MSU AMSU data do not measure temperature but the raw data have to be reworked. Gives lots of opportunities for deniers like Spencer and Christy to work their miracles, doesn't it. Even after the errors in their methods were pointed out they still seem to come up with the very lowest numbers of all the others who have done similar conversions of the same raw data.

Here is a nice coloured picture, that unless you are blind or a complete idiot, will show that you are again talking rubbish (I'll be polite).

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt

Ian Forrester

The dispute is over whether 2007 is (will be) the warmest year on record (as Stephen claims) or not (as I claim).

It is very clear from the graphs that I am right.

Btw, interesting that you think numbers are meaningless, but that colourful graphs is the way to go. Shows, perhaps, the level of analysis you are prepared to engage in?

JIK, have you read many scientific papers recently (or ever)? If scientists just provided raw data, long, long lists of numbers there would be very few papers published.

The brighter scientists (unfortunately does not include AGW deniers) realized a long time ago that "a picture is worth more than millions of isolated numbers" (to paraphrase a well known quote). Your comments just show how little you know about science. I hope that they don't let you get too close to nuclear reactors (or produce any data on them) in your job.

Ian Forrester

regardless of your opinions about books.

If you want to go beyond the superficial, you have to get to the actual numbers.

Are you an ignorant fool, Johan? I am sick of you and your stone-headed behaviour on this blog, as nothing ever seems to sink in.

The Hadley Centre says there it is likely that 2007 will exceed 2006 and 1998 for being the warmest year on record. What part about that do you not understand?

If you lack the basic understanding of climate projections, it's time for you to go back to first-year university and learn how they are made. If you refuse to listen to reason, please stop posting your crap on this blog and messing with the minds of some of the more impressionable people who visit this site. Your writings will act as a toxin to those who fall under this category.

I merely report actually measured global temperature (and other) data.

Stephen, you have to become more open minded. The circular reasoning that you and some of your fellow AGW alarmists are so addicted to does not work very well in a scientific setting.

Example of circular reasoning:
i) Catastrophic AGW is the absolute truth
ii) Should evidence to the contrary surface, it has to be false, due to point i).

Johan, I was open-minded about AGW at the outset of my personal investigation. The more I read and the more I studied the problem, the more certain I became that AGW presents a grave threat to the planet and all who call it home.

The data do not lie. The planet is warming at an alarming rate and the prime culprit of this warming is human activities which emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Those who cannot see this (or will not see this as a result of ideological blindness or being blinded by greed) either are ignorant of the scientific process or, more odiously, have no sense of morality and have no conscience whatsoever.

What is significant is that the global temperature has NOT increased over the last 10 years.

At the same time, however, the hysteria from the AGW alarmists have reached record heights. And, of course, the dreaded CO2 level has also continued to increase.

That is outright fraud. Take away the extremely anomalously warm 1998 (due to a very strong El Nino), and you have continuous warming from the 1970s to today. 1998 was simply an extremely anomalously warm year surrounded by dozens of anomalously warm years, the anomalies of which have been increasing for decades.

Johan, you, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, and your group of parrots are guilty of the worst cherry-picking imaginable.

Let's review this discussion:
i) Stephen writes that "2007 is set to be the warmest year globally on record"
ii)I then show that this is not correct (and provide a link to the data source).
iii) Stephen accuses me of fraud.

Stephen, do you still claim that "2007 is set to be the warmest year globally on record"? If so, can you provide a real data source (and not just a BBC article)?

Btw, how do you define a normal year? (As opposed to an "anomalous" year.) This is not a trick question, I just would like to understand your definition.

Go to the NOAA link already provided, liar.

Have another coffee, it might help.

Troll. Bore.

are founded on real data (complete with links).

So I understand your need to give up.

go back to the Globe&Mail and play there for awhile. This is really getting tiresome . . .

JIK you have no idea what to do with raw data. See Ian Forrester's post above.

of your graphs & analysis, why don't you go to Real Climate and challenge Michael Mann to have a crack at it? Or better yet, submit it to one of the scientific journals as a response to the research you claim is so flawed? If you are really on to something, share it with the scientific community so that they can correct all of their misguided conclusions. Or maybe just stand back and let the real scientists get on with it . . .

(as you may know) so that is probably not a good idea.

But I don't see why it is so difficult to accept that Stephen was wrong and I was right regarding 2007. Whether you believe in catastrophic AGW or not, I would assume the results for one year (2007 in this case) does prove or disprove anything.

JIK , this whole thread started with you saying "Based on the most objective temperature measurements there is, there is actually small negative trend in global temperatures since 1998".

Which numerous posters have explained to you is just wrong and is a blatant untruth if you examine the data. Graphs just make it easier to spot trends, which your ridiculous list of numbers just doesn't show. I am not going to take the time to plot your numbers to see if you are in fact interpreting them correctly or not since based on previous experience you have a habit of not being exactly honest.

Ian Forrester

Ian, this fellow is a regular over at the Globe & Mail comments, and he and a few others (JLuft pops to mind) carry on like this ad nauseum. He won't get it, now or ever. It's linear thinking at its finest, and blinkered at that.

i) Catastrophic AGW is the one and only truth
ii) Any evidence to the contrary must therefore be false because of point i)

from Ian.

Do your homework:
- Plot the last 10 years of montly global averages from the data source indicated.
- Calculate the linear trend (linear regression).
- Report your results.

Ten years does not indicate climate change (either way) but it does prove that I am right (at least in this case).

This is the (slightly abbreviated) actual report put out just over a week ago by the Hadley Centre:

Another warm year as Bali conference ends
13 December 2007

The Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia have today released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show that the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years.

The provisional global figure, using data from January to November, currently places 2007 as the seventh warmest on record since 1850.

...

The last time annual mean global temperatures were below the 1961-1990 long-term average was in 1985. Since then, mean surface air temperatures have continued to demonstrate a warming trend around the world. 2007 has been no exception to this, even though there has been a La Niña event which usually reduces global temperatures.

Professor Phil Jones, Director of UEA's Climatic Research Unit, said, "The year began with a weak El Niño – the warmer relation of La Niña – and global temperatures well above the long-term average. However, since the end of April the La Niña event has taken some of the heat out of what could have been an even warmer year."

In January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, predicted that 2007 could record global temperatures well above the long-term average. There was also a 60% probability that 2007 could be the warmest on record and the expected temperature for 2007 is within the range predicted.

Professor Jones said, "2007 was warmer in the Northern Hemisphere, where the year ranks second warmest, than the Southern Hemisphere, where it ranks ninth warmest."

Met Office Climate Scientist David Parker added, "This year has also seen sea-ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere below average in each month of 2007, with record minima sea-ice reported in July, August and September. In the Southern Hemisphere, sea-ice coverage has remained close to average."

Meanwhile, across the UK, 2007 is on course to become one of the warmest years on record. Even if the mean temperature for December is 1 °C below the 1971-2000 long-term average, the year will still be the third warmest since UK-wide records began in 1914. In this 94-year series, the last six years (2002-2007) are set to become the six warmest years.

...

Global top 10 warmest years
Year Difference from average (°C)
1998 +0.52
2005 +0.48
2003 +0.46
2002 +0.46
2004 +0.43
2006 +0.42
2007 (Jan-Nov) +0.41
2001 +0.40
1997 +0.36
1995 +0.28
UK top 10 warmest years
Year Difference from average (°C)
2006 +1.15
2007 (Jan-Nov) +1.10
2003 + 0.92
2004 + 0.89
2002 + 0.89
2005 + 0.87
1990 + 0.83
1997 + 0.82
1949 + 0.80
1999 + 0.78
Difference from average with respect to 1961-90
Difference from average with respect to 1971-2000

The science of climate change – UN Climate Change Summit, Bali

World Meteorological Organisation press releases

Met Office Hadley Centre datasets

Met Office weather records explained

Notes

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon is a large-scale, natural fluctuation of the ocean-atmosphere system centred across the tropical to sub-tropical Indo-Pacific region. Through teleconnections to higher latitudes in both hemispheres, ENSO impacts can extend to near-global dimensions during strong phases of its El Niño or La Niña extremes.

JIK, don't you ever get tired of being shown how wrong and stupid you are? Do your work colleagues realize how poor you are at math and statistics (not to mention reading simple words and numbers)?

Here are the most recent data from GISS (Dec - Nov numbers)

1995 - 0.46
1996 - 0.38
1997 - 0.40
1998 - 0.70
1999 - 0.49
2000 - 0.42
2001 - 0.54
2002 - 0.70
2003 - 0.65
2004 - 0.61
2005 - 0.75
2006 - 0.65
2007 - 0.75

The right hand column shows temp anomaly in degrees C based on the 1951-1980 average.

Then I did a series of regressions to give the slope of temperature change over a number of yearly ranges:

1995-2007 - 0.026
1996-2007 - 0.028
1997-2007 - 0.026
1998-2007 - 0.020
1999-2007 - 0.034
2000-2007 - 0.035

Right hand column represents the rate of change of temperature in degrees C for the given period (slope of the linear regression line). No matter which year you pick as a starting year the slopes are all positive, indicating RISING TEMPERATURES.

How can anyone with even the lowest level of statistics say that temperatures have remained constant over the past 9 - 10 years, let alone say that they have dropped? For anyone who claims to be "an expert in statistics", (M, M and W) it shows that they are liars.

There you go, JIK, no fancy graphs, no cloured maps just plain and simple data treated to a very simple statistical analysis. Still shows that you are either very stupid or a liar, take your pick.

Ian Forrester