Hmmm, Record Jump in Green House Gasses, but...

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Another bullshit site.

How about something from some real physicists? The reading taken from the satellites agree in detail with those from the ground sites.

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2011: +0.11 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jim, old boy, read a bit concerning the Milankovic Cycles. Far from coming out of an ice age, we should at this time be slowly, as in a 20,000 year decline, entering the next one.

 

[Old Rocks]

The nonsense that the last decade has leveled off or declined in temperature is a 'Conservative' talking point that has no basis in reality. Look at the temperatures in the chart below. Nine of the ten warmest years were in the last decade. Why bother to repeat outright easily disproven lies?

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year Global[44] Land[45] Ocean[46]
20 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)

Year Global Land Ocean
2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896
2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885
1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090
...

Now you go to BS doctored data which prove nothing.

Look at the chart used in your article, '1880-2010 Global annual and decadal mean surface temperature change.'

File:NOAA Land Ocean temperature anomaly.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now compare that to this chart:

NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nasa_us_adjustments.png?w=480&h=480

Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.

Those are bullshit phoney numbers that you quote from Wikipedia, a site totally dominated by Warmista hacks.

On top of that with all the 'adjustments' going on, who knows what is the real data anymore? The situation invites comparisons between adjusted data sets as to whose is the most adjusted and giving the desired results.

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits | Watts Up With That?

Corrections are needed, Masters says, “since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years.” As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren’t any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.

“It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don’t have that luxury,” Masters adds. “All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well.”

But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the ’100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”

The IPCC thugs and the allies do not have any desire to show real science. All they want is more power and money to be given to them and other government bureacracies by people frightened by phoney data about no real problem.

Jim, you are proposing that this is a world wide conspiracy since there is a global consensus among scientists that AGW is real and a threat to all of us.

You see, there is not one scientific society in the world that claims that AGW is not real. Nor one National Academy of Science. Not even one major university. In the world. Now that is some conspiracy, old boy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim, you are proposing that this is a world wide conspiracy since there is a global consensus among scientists that AGW is real and a threat to all of us.

You see, there is not one scientific society in the world that claims that AGW is not real. Nor one National Academy of Science. Not even one major university. In the world. Now that is some conspiracy, old boy.

You are making an argument from authority which is not a scientific argument.

Polling scientists for Truth is how journalism might work, but not science.

 

[westwall]

Your explanation was simply a story that doesn't necessarily hold water. How long do we have to wait to see the decline? To me the lag shows that the effect has been blunted, making AGW a likely explanation. After all, if the sun can have an effect, why not other sources? The skeptics like to say that scientists are ignoring natural cycles(a big laugh by the way), but they consistently want to ignore the effects of GHGs.

The explanation does hold water, in theory, but that doesnt mean it is true, of course.

As to how long, probably over the next few years, as this cycle (25?) winds down and the sun goes dormant after an abnormally weak peak.

And other sources do have an effect, from green house gasses to the suns cyclic position in the galaxy, to wobbles on the Earths axis.

The thing that most AGW skeptics are doubting isnt that warming has been occuring up untill recently, but whether human emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of that CO2 and if that CO2 increase is what primarily is driving the higher temperatures.

I dont see enough evidence to support such a view except in a very tentative way, and ce3rtainly no where near the certitude I would think necesary to hand over tremendous power to the government and allow government bureaucrats more ability to interfere in our private lives.

Richard Muller, a former skeptic, does!!!

Commentary: Science trumps climate change deniers - KansasCity.com

Muller was never a sceptic as you well know. He is a principle in a sustainability company, a sure sign of an ardent warmist.