Note how the conversation descended immediatly into flap-yap and invectutive on the part of the 'sceptics' when real science was cited. Not a single peer reviewed paper to support their bullshit opinions. Just lies and nonsense. "It's getting colder" In spite of the fact that even by Dr. Spencers graph the low of this double La Nina was higher then the average highs prior to 1998. "CO2 doesn't really increase heat retention". Even Dr. Lindzen, when he is not busy defending tobacco, has to admit that CO2 is a GHG. Fourier did the math for the albedo of the Earth in the early 1820's, and stated that there had to be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the outgoing heat, because by the figures, the oceans should be frozen to the equator. Tyndall, in 1859, published a paper that described the absorbtion spectra of most GHGs. Arrhenius, in 1896, did a study on the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and, given the knowledge of the time, came surprisingly close to the numbers we have today for the affects of the increase in GHGs. Yet the numbskulls here still insist there is no proof or scientifically rigiorous papers concerning the properties of GHGs that increase the heat in the atmosphere and ocean.
And we are already seeing the effects of the increase in the heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. In fact, the predictions of the people like Dr. Hansen, have been far to conservative. Not nearly alarmist enough. The Arctic Ice is now where the predictions said it would be in 2050. The Storms of our Grandchildren are already occuring. Given that at the very end of a double La Nina, the global temperature for the month of April was higher than any temperature prior to 1998, and the bottom of the average for this downturn is higher than the high point for any high point in the averages prior to 1998, one can only wonder what the high point will be in the next El Nino.
UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
You still don't seem to grasp the concept that it is cooling from 2001 to now. Cooling means cooler than it was at a specified point in time. A comparison of temperatures over time.
Here's a power point that might help.
In terms of geologic time, out instrumental record is just about equal to nothing. That said, the warming of 30 years or 10 years are equally specious to hold up as examples. The fact remains, though, that the most recent decade has cooed in real-world actual temperatures. That is, until they are revised upward by the Hockey Team.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/Steffen-...ce - March 2011- QO commentary - 5z (NXP).ppt
<snip>
SLIDE 21 – Global surface temperature anomalies for 2001-2011 as recorded by the Hadley Centre.
Note that global temperature has declined slightly over the last ten years, at a rate of -0.4o C/century by ordinary least squares analysis (blue line, OLS) or -0.06o C/century if temperature is corrected for ENSO variations (gold line; MEI = Multivariate ENSO Index-corrected). In comparison, IPCCÂ’s GCM models project a warming (red line) at a rate of +2.0o C/century.
The HadCRUT3 dataset uses a 1961-1990 baseline for temperature anomaly calculation. As plotted here, the data has been adjusted to a 1980-1999 average temperature baseline.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The importance of this graph is not, per se, that it can be used to make the statement that “temperature has cooled over the last 10 years”. Though that statement is true, the criticism of it that 10 years is far too short a time over which to observe climate change is (in conventional weather/climate terms) also true. But beware then the critic who goes on to say that “of course, if you look at temperature since 1979, it has undeniably warmed”. Again, a true statement, and, again, 32 years is far too short a period to be of climatic significance - representing, as it does, just one climate data point.
Instead, the importance of the data shown in this slide is that, combined with our knowledge of increasing carbon dioxide levels, it comprises a test of the hypothesis that “human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming”. Given that carbon dioxide levels increased from 371 ppm in 2001 to ~390 ppm in 2011, an increase of ~5%, the hypothesis is clearly invalidated by this test. Equally, the test also invalidates the GCM models used by the IPCC of having predictive, as opposed to heuristic, value.
Graphic: Liljegren, Lucia, 2011 (Feb. 19). HadCrut January Anomaly: 0.194C. The Blackboard.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-january-anomaly-0-194c/.
<snip>
