Dear Kenneth,

A possible explanation for the increasing values of carbon dioxide could be the Mauna Loa observatory location, see here for details:

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxide.htm

I opened this discussion for searching the truth only, since the consequences of the CO2 hunting are already present in my country, see photos below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%B8%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%BB%CE%B7+%CF%84%CE%B6%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B9+%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B1&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nAYLU7azGMG7ygO76oGwBQ&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=810

**********

The Public Electric Company of Greece uses lignite for about 50% of the production, so we all pay the CO2 emissions by increased bills for electricity.

You see, scientists can 'play', but the bills have always to be paid from simple citizens...

Dear Henk,

I have also the same questions about the 3rd data set.

But:

1) CO2 is heavier than air

2) there are studies about the total sun activity that show the sun as the source of increase or decrease in world temperature, see here:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

http://www.inventus.org/posterous/file/2009/04/228337-2879280.pdf

and references therein or here:

http://www.inventus.org/posterous/file/2009/04/228337-2879280.pdf

*************

I think that the speculation of

increasing CO2--> increasing temperature

is one yet kind of 'military science': Science that has to prove the pre-chosen policies.

I think increase the amount of carbon dioxide is the reason behind temperature increase

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground can be measured. From which it can be seen that CO2 is adds considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Dear Demetris

Global warming has profound impacts may cause the extinction of animal and plant species, changes in the frequency and intensity of rainfall, rising sea levels and intensifying weather events such as severe storms, floods, windstorms, heat waves and prolonged droughts.

Human actions have affected the environment at a very fast pace. Studies indicate that while the average global temperature has risen approximately 5 ° C in 10,000 years, the same can increase 5 ° C in just 200 years to continue the pace of recent decades

Has anybody an explanation for the attachment plot?

It plots normalised values - [0,1] - of the peaks of sunspots and the anomaly in temperature. We clearly observe a rather peculiar situation:

*when sun goes down, temperatute goes up.

Any explanation?

The peaks data:

ipeak x y

1 4 1883 63.63333

2 14 1893 85.08333

3 19 1898 26.71667

4 26 1905 63.46667

5 28 1907 62.03333

6 38 1917 103.89167

7 49 1928 77.80833

8 58 1937 114.40000

9 68 1947 151.50833

10 78 1957 189.85833

11 89 1968 105.89167

12 93 1972 68.93333

13 100 1979 155.27500

14 110 1989 157.79167

15 112 1991 145.77500

16 121 2000 119.53333

[*Thanks to Robert A LaBudde and his function findpeaks()]

Dear Kenneth, a proper peak collection for minima and maxima of sunspots (monthly average for every year) is this:

===========================================================

xpeakmax ypeakmax xpeakmin ypeakmin

[1,] 1883 63.63333 1889 6.216667

[2,] 1893 85.08333 1901 2.741667

[3,] 1905 63.46667 1913 1.441667

[4,] 1917 103.89167 1923 5.775000

[5,] 1928 77.80833 1933 5.658333

[6,] 1937 114.40000 1944 9.591667

[7,] 1947 151.50833 1954 4.408333

[8,] 1957 189.85833 1964 10.200000

[9,] 1968 105.89167 1976 12.550000

[10,] 1979 155.27500 1986 13.400000

[11,] 1989 157.79167 1996 8.625000

[12,] 2000 119.53333 2008 2.866667

===========================================================

The relevant normalised plot is the attachement plot.

What is your opinion about the increasing envelope of maxima (I have not plotted it) from 1880 to 1960?

Does it affect the temperature?

Dear Kenneth, we are using different data.

Please see my data:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

From that data the minima and maxima are those mentioned at the previous plot above.

Is there any other (reliable) source for solar activity historical data?

I'd be greatful to you for providing it.

Thank you

Thank you Kenneth, the data base you mentioned is a huge one.

So, as I understood from this small work, there also exists a Standard Model in the scientific field of climate and environmental studies just like in Particle Physics.

Anyway, I remind everybody that Physics has stuck due to its arrogant certainity that has explained anything with a set of symmetries.

The last thing I heard is that the cold weather in US has to do with the increasing temperature...

OK...

It appears the point of the discussion is: if you pick and choose your data you can come up with pretty much any interpretation you wish. I suppose that is where objectivity and integrity come into play.

A simple and rational explanation that I thought recently (I mean by not accepting conspiracy and other similar theories) has to do deeper with the large egotism that human beings have. Let's see a small set of our historic abort:

*The Earth is the Center of Cosmos(CoC): aborted (remember Galileo)

*The Sun is the CoC: aborted (Aristarchos)

*The centre of Milky Way is the CoC: aborted (early Astronomical observations)

*...

*The centre of our Universe is the CoC: aborted (new parallel universes from superstrings theories)

...

Now we are in a situation where we live in our local and locally Euclidean universe, while Mathematics have presented so many possibilities for universe existences...

Starting from the above general way of thinking and focusing on climate change:

*It is supposed that Mankind is so strong, so adequately strong, that can modify the climate conditions and indeed has modified them to the wrong direction.

Sorry, maybe I am not an expert, but I cannot accept such an egoistic perception...

And I feel happy because experts like Kenneth present similar results.

you might want to take a look at some recent literature dealing with the so-called hiatus in global temperature increase. This one is the most recent:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html

Cheers,

Raffa

I understand the adjustments made to the data and many of the reasons for the adjustments (heat island effect, station location, equipment calibration, etc). What I question is why anyone would highlight the decreasing trend in temperature over the last 15 years, rather than the increasing trend over the last 5 years... or the nearly flat trend over the last 20 years... or the much larger increasing trend over the last 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 decades. Why pick the specific period of 15 years? Or the "33 year trend" from 1953-1986? Sure, you can sift through the data and pick periods with anomalous trends, but it doesn't accurately describe the trends in the overall data and certainly doesn't describe "what is really happening with the time evolution of atmospheric temperature." So what is the justification for choosing those periods?

Demetris, it does not have to be "supposed that Mankind is so strong, so adequately strong, that can modify the climate conditions..." It has been proven. We HAVE modified the composition of the atmosphere, undoubted increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. A simple energy balance and the effects of greenhouse gases strongly suggests the recorded increase in temperature is most likely due to that increase in atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, it is clear at least some of our technology is "adequately strong" enough to modify the entire planet... consider the existing arsenal of atomic bombs. Attempting to diminish anthropoGENIC impacts to the planet with a reference to past anthropoCENTRIC views is illogical.

Kenneth, I don't see how my question has anything to do with the sources of the data. The time intervals you mentioned are clearly arbitrary, regardless of the dataset. As Henk Smid points out, you can pick arbitrary intervals out of nearly any data set to support spurious arguments that are not supported by the rest of the data. I assume that is what you are attempting to illustrate.

Can you tell me why you chose to report trends for the last 15-17 year period and the seemingly arbitrary 33 year period from 1953-1986, both of which contradict the majority of trends that can be pulled out of the NCDC data set? Surely you realize that if you pick the equally arbitrary 33 year interval from 1956-1989 the same data set (NCDC) shows an increasing trend in temperature over the US. And even your arbitrary 33 year period shows an increasing trend in global temperature. In fact, the overwhelming majority of temperature trends from every reasonably complete data set I'm aware of show an increasing trend in temperature, assuming the same criteria are applied to the whole data set (i.e. comparing all 33 year trends, or all 15 year trends, or 30 year trends, rather than picking out a few anomalies here and there). Do you know of a data set that does not?

I'm not sure the point of your question. You can look it up just as easily as I can and I'm sure you are aware global temperatures are reported as anomalies compared to a mean, rather than actual temperatures. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Wes I really doubt about Mankind's great powerful abilities even in the case of a potential nuclear destruction. I was young and I am going to be an old man until people stopped panic each other with the nuclear terror project, do you remember USA vs USSR? We can discuss in a new thread the need for existence of a permanent global terrorization project, whatever is this every time:

*nuclear, pandemic, climate, bankrupty (it is trendy now) and ... be my guest: Try to predict the next mass terrorization project of humanity for the decade 2020!

PS: As a young boy I had written so many compositions in school about 'cold war', that now I am laughing so much... Now children write compositions about climate change...

Demetris, I know this is going off-topic, but...just a question. Would you say that back in the 20's and 30's those who were warning about the danger of having two crazy dictators in the continent, were alarmists?

The fact that the cold war did not end in a hot war does not mean that the danger was not real.

How quickly the strawmen come out to play.

Yes, in fact it was quite easy. Two clicks away from the link I posted above. Simply click on the "Mean Temperature Estimates" link on the following page. You may also want to read the FAQs as you seem pretty baffled by some of the concepts:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

And yes, I meant strawmen.

Wes, can you be more specific about your serious accusation for 'strawmen'?

Since this thread started from me I have the right to ask you straightway:

*Who are the stramen my friend?*

(Υou can answer by pm if you want so, but you have to answer!)

Thank you.

“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

We might need a theory to explain the change of the sun's magnetic field strength first before we try to predict the future climate.

I never expected to see a link to "whattsupwiththat" on researchgate. How very disappointing. The original question asks about the "time evolution" of temperature. The curator asked me: "I guess Wes hasn't found those anomaly temperature means on which the anomalies are referenced, and which he said he could easily look up. Wasn't so easy, was it Wes?" Actually, yes, it was quite easy. Yet the discussion quickly turns to pinpointing absolute temperatures for select years, which has nothing to do with a trend analysis and is the definition of cherry picking.

Apparently the Ken missed this from the link he shared:

"Anomalies (also called departures from average) are used because they describe more accurately climatic variability over large areas than the absolute temperatures do and they give a frame of reference that allows for easier interpretation of the numbers. For example, a summer month over a large area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures may be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average. For these reasons, it is the anomalies that are computed for large-area summaries (like a hemisphere or the globe), not the temperature itself. "

Strawmen include (or perhaps more accurately red herrings... either way, relevance fallacies):

"*nuclear, pandemic, climate, bankrupty (it is trendy now) and ... be my guest: Try to predict the next mass terrorization project of humanity for the decade 2020!" Predicting a terrorist attack has absolutely NOTHING to do with the physical laws that govern the Earth's energy balance.

Antiquated anthropocentric world views have nothing to do with proven anthropogenic impacts. Humans HAVE changed the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and are certainly more than capable of having an impact on the Earth, regardless of ancient peoples' best attempts to describe their universe.

Suggesting that the lack of an absolute temperature for 2 specific years calls into question a clear trend of increasing temperature based on more than a century of data proves nothing but a lack of understanding regarding how trends are calculated.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145

Do you feel happy now?

Of course not, if someone will lose his job as a climate predictor :-)

Guoliang, I don't understand the point of your post. The importance of cosmic rays on cloud formation and global climate has been an active area of research for over a decade. Perhaps you can explain what that has to do with the 100+ year warming trend, while keeping in mind the cosmic ray flux on Earth has shown no significant trend over the last 5 or so decades.

Come on Mr. Towe... the TREND is EXACTLY THE SAME, regardless of the reference value.

I'll ask again:

The overwhelming majority of temperature trends from every reasonably complete data set I'm aware of show an increasing trend in temperature. Do you know of a data set that does not?

Wes,

My point is that the Sun's magnetic field and cosmic rays might demonstrate its importance for climate.

A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and modern physic is not yet able to predict solar magnetic field activity, so now we should not waste our time to predict the future climate.

Ah, yes, the "we shouldn't waste our time on prediction" argument... a sentiment well established in science since Kepler began predicting tides and Newton predicted the existence of Neptune and others predicted the existence of black holes, etc.

You say modern physics is not yet able to predict solar magnetic field activity. Should we not waste out time testing predictions against observations for that subject... or just climate?

If the climate could be related to the solar or even the earth's magnetic field activity, and not only related to the greenhouse gases, then it is waste of time to predict the future climate at this stage.

Somewhere I got the impression you were a curator at the Smithsonian. My mistake and sorry that I offended you.

Your question about absolute temperature of the northern hemisphere is irrelevant to an analysis of the temperature trend. See sections 7-9: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

"Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region."

Pay particular attention to this part, which is true for every trend analysis to my knowledge, and you will realize why your question is irrelevant:

"The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it."

The trend analysis of each station reported in the CRUTEM 4.2 data set will be the same, regardless of whether you normalize by the mean or use the absolute temperature. The trend being one of increasing temperature. Knock yourself out: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/station_files/CRUTEM.4.2.0.0.station_files.zip

Dear all, here is the Jan Mayen, NORWAY, code: 010010 from 1921 to 2013.

Here is LERWICK, UK, code: 030050 from 1827 t0 2013.

And finally the KAITAIA A, NEW ZEALAND, code: 930120 from 1942 to 2011.

I don't think that everything is going up. Instead we have an oscillation from a lower to an upper level and go on...

Actually I did the same plot for the folder 01 which has 187 stations and I didn't notice any increasing trend or other really warning behavior. I think that, as Kenneth already has shown us, the trick of collecting a time period for characterizing all the time series according to the departures from its mean (the anomalies) is what makes the difference: Choose a base period and terrorize us!

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. The continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out.

https://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

Dear Kenneth, especially for you:

We have 6190 stations, we keep the North hemisphere, 4964 entries and finally we keep only those with entry in 1975.

Results:

==========================================

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's

-20.540 4.008 9.125 9.377 14.780 29.940 994

===========================================

The mean temperature for 1975 at North is 9.377 o C.

What do you think about?

Dear Kenneth, the data that I had to work with was the definition of mess-data.

I wonder if climate scientists can obtain reliable estimations from such an inhomogeneous, full of NA or -99 entries, without any time sychronisation (other stations started from 1850 and other from 1980!) and I have to clearly say that it was a headache for me! I didn't make any kind of adjustment and the only think I did was to exclude all year raw line if NA existed for some months. I kept only full month data.

The other exclusion was for latitude>90! (Yes the mess data was not even correctly structured, so the year was not at the same raw...)

*Details:

-->6190 stations all around the world

-->6153 of correct latitude

--->4932 (today) for North latitude stations

**Results for 1975

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's

-20.540 4.008 9.133 9.374 14.780 29.940 983

============

If I had to write a paper I wouldn't claim that results are correct since data was not acceptable for my standards.

But, then why so many scientists claim that: "Oh, we are getting hot, we are warming, ..."

First I'd like to advice all of them to find and upload to the internet reliable data.

Anyway, I'd like to thank all of you who participated in this discussion.

As for my conclusion, I think that there exists a strong block of scientists who believe in a religious like way that we are going over-warming as time elapses... Recently I had the oppurtunity to feel the reaction of that block as a rejection of my manuscript from a place that I believed that it was more liberal than other places...

Keep believing, I am not interested in doing scientific work in climate...

Bye...

Kenneth, for the 4924 Northern stations with complete data records we have the results:

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's

-20.540 4.008 9.133 9.374 14.780 29.940 975

See plot of all available stations.

We want mean values from 1880 to 2014, OK?

I need some time for this task.

I still find it mind boggling that some are obsessed with having an "absolute temperature" in order to discuss trends. Based on my understanding of the analysis, it doesn't even matter if each individual instrument is off by some arbitrary amount, as long as the instrument precision isn't affected and there is no instrumental drift. You simply subtract the mean temperature at a site from the data collected at that site. It doesn't matter if the mean is 8C or 100C or whatever; the trend will be the same. That is why we use the anomaly, so we can identify trends in data from various sites regardless of individual site characteristics that affect the mean (i.e. altitude, local weather patterns, etc).

New findings from working with 6129 files out of 6190, after removing files with problems nad problems...(starting from NA entries and ending with files from just two years entries!)

#1939 ( mean=9.829)

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's

-16.200 5.417 9.617 9.829 14.570 30.580 3347

#1959 (Mean=10.220)

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's

-19.570 4.556 9.588 10.220 16.270 31.240 2162

#1975 (Mean=9.607)

Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's

-20.540 4.092 9.212 9.607 15.160 29.940 2069

As you see it is not compatible with the graph presented by Kenneth.

Watch that we have many NA's at 1939, while the '59 and '75 NA' s are close each other.

So, from 1939 to 1975 we had a decline:

9.829-9.607=0.222 degree C which is not like the graph.

To clarify, you have a decrease in the ensemble mean temperature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your analysis doe not take into account the location of each station. For example, if the 1975 mean includes more high altitude stations than 1939 the mean would be lower. That is precisely why the anomaly (relative to the mean at each station) is used to look the trends.

Depends on the mean that was used to determine those 1934 anomalies. If the mean includes December and July of 2013, then yes, you simply add the December and July 2013 anomalies onto the mean. "What was the absolute temperature of the northern hemisphere in 1975" is still irrelevant to a discussion of trends.

Henk, how are you? Everything OK in Netherlands?

Look here the firing Earth!

A first thought on the above graph of station locations is that they are not uniformly distributed all around the world: Quite contrary they are located where the industrial and population density is high. So, probably there exist problems with bias in the temperature observations...

Ken, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding the basics of how the data is processed. Hopefully you can do a little research on your own because I really can't explain it much better than I already have. Clearly my explanation is not getting through to you and quite frankly this discussion is getting tedious. I suggest you read up on time-series and trend analysis.

In your example, the Dec and July 1934 anomaly is not likely based on the 1934 mean temperature, it is based on the longer-term temperature record for that site. The mean for each site is calculated using the data recorded over some time for that specific site, the long the better. The anomaly is simply the recorded temperature (from that station) minus the mean determined from the data set (from that station) that includes the temperature of interest. The anomaly can be yearly or monthly, depending on your interest. The mean is usually calculated for the long-term (multi-year) data set. If the entire temperature record includes 2013 (Jan 2013), then yes, you simply add the 2013 (Jan 2013) anomaly to the mean to get the 2013 (Jan 2013) temperature. It really is quite simple.

The "average temperature of the northern hemisphere in 1975" is completely irrelevant to a discussion of trends. First off, it ignores any complications with up scaling temperature records from the individual sites and the local climatic factors that affect inter-site variability. In the context of trend analysis, that issue is handled by using the anomalies relative to the mean of each station. Second, the average temperature for a single year says absolutely nothing about the temperature trend. Claiming I can't tell you what the monthly average temperatures were last year is absurd... not to mention irrelevant.

Good luck in your furthering your understanding!

@Wes, I think that the problem is the choice of the 'base time period': If you choose a 'cold period', then whatever is the absolute temperature the 'anomaly plot' will certainly present an up-going curve. So, I agree with Kenneth: we need to compare absolute values.

Demetris, the "base time period" for determining the mean for a station is the entire data set, not some arbitrarily chosen "cold" or "warm" period. Trends based on the anomaly (regardless of method or data used to determine the mean) will be the same as trends based on the "absolute" temperatures. Offset every temperature by 8675309 C and the trend will still be the same. Your original question asks about "time evolution," which I assume means trend... which does not depend on absolute temperature.

An example using the 20th century means to discuss global temperature anomalies: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global#temp

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F)."

"The global land temperature was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest on record for January, at 1.17°C (2.11°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)."

"For the ocean, the January global sea surface temperature was 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F)"

So you think you are, Wes? Look here from the data that I used for my initial work:

************************************************************************************************

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN-v3 1880-01/2014 + SST: ERSST 1880-01/2014

using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment

Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing

AnnMean

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

1880 -32 -26 -21 -29 -15 -22 -18 -10 -19 -17 -15 -20 -20**** ***** -22 -17 -17 1880

1881 -11 -14 0 -1 -1 -25 -9 -6 -16 -21 -25 -16 -12 -12 -15 -1 -13 -21 1881

1882 5 6 0 -22 -18 -30 -25 -9 -10 -24 -23 -36 -15 -14 -2 -13 -21 -19 1882

1883 -36 -36 -11 -18 -19 -6 -1 -12 -18 -18 -26 -18 -18 -20 -36 -16 -6 -21 1883

--

--

--

2013 63 51 60 48 56 60 53 61 73 60 78 60 60 59 53 55 58 71 2013

2014 70******************************************************* ********* ******************** 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Celsius (deg-C).

Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit (deg-F).

Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C or 57.2 deg-F,

so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale

(this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)

Example -- Table Value : 40

change : 0.40 deg-C or 0.72 deg-F

abs. scale if global annual mean : 14.40 deg-C or 57.92 deg-F

************************************************************************************************

Are you still so sure now?

I'm not sure because I don't know what you mean by "table value: 40." Perhaps you can clarify?

Every observation in the Table is like cents of $, so in order to convert it to $ (ie o Celsius) you have first to divide it by 100. For example the first one:

1880 -32

means that at 1832 we had -32/100=-0.32 degree Celsius below the mean value of 14.0 deg-C of the base-time 1951-1980.

Is it clear now?

OK, think now that the 1950-1980, as Kenneth has already told us, was a period where we had a global cooling hysteria (similar to out modern global warming one).

So, we took a cold period as a base time, we expressed other temperatures relative to the mean of it and oh la la: Global warning for warming! Bingo...

PS Wes are you joking me? Do you want me to believe that you dind't know to read those tables?

No, I was not joking you. Your method was not clear to me. It doesn't matter what value you express other temperatures relative to, as long as it is consistent. If they are going up, they are going up. Express it relative to 100C if you want... the 1951-1980 mean would then be 114C and the other temperatures will still go up over time. Or -100C... the 1951-1980 average would be -86C and the other temperatures will still go up over time. The trend does not depend on the absolute temperature or the number the anomaly is based on, it has to do with the slope, the first derivative with respect to time.

For someone who clearly doesn't know what a trend is you sure make some big claims about what I do and don't know.

The following link provides the average Northern Hemisphere Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies. The 1975 anomaly is -0.03C. The anomalies are reported with respect to the 20th century average, which is 13.9C, found in the second link.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/nhem/land_ocean/12/12/1880-2014

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Again, the absolute temperature is completely irrelevant to the trend. Far more important is using the available data from a consistent data source to evaluate the trend, not a couple select points from different data sets that may have different systematic errors. I can't (won't) argue with your "trends" based on two points, 1934 and 2012 or 1938 and 1968, and/or two different methods for estimating temperature.

You clearly have a long way to go in your understanding of how trends are appropriately calculated. Good luck with that. I'm done.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After a hard work I am in the pleasant position to present you a possible solution to the puzzle of global Earth temperature evolution here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260792027_Extraction_of_the_global_absolute_temperature_for_Northern_hemisphere_from_a_set_of_6190_meteorological_stations

Please read it and I am waiting for your critiques!

Article Extraction of the global absolute temperature for Northern h...

If you also see the supplementary material then you will observe that the absolute temperature has not a mean value of 14 Celsius by no way.

Look for yourselves:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Demetris_Christopoulos/publications/?ev=prf_pubs_1

"ALL trends require absolute temperatures regardless of base period or how any individual measurement is made, raw, corrected or adjusted."

You couldn't be more wrong.

It is obvious that we are facing an over-heating, look by yourself the Reuters report:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-usa-weather-cold-idUSKCN0J227820141119

[Especially dedicated to the censors of arxiv.org!]

I have writen and documented and discovered the mechanisms driving climate variability to be of solar origin

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimis_Poulos

Δημήτρη, if you see Fig. 6 of my mentioned publication you will observe indeed an oscillation during time.

Your model is very interesting.

The only issue seems to be a kind of fine calibration, since temperatures are not maxima at 1950, but a few years later, 1953, see Table 7.

But it isn't so significant such a small difference.

Nice work!

Sometimes people think that IPCC does investigate into global warming, but indeed it looks into climate change. The expression global warming is out since many years as it is acknowldeged that it is much more than around temperature change. Global cooling, if it exists is also climate change.

In Germany we can have temperatures in winter of minus 20 degrees Celsius. That is winter and we call this winter weather. Some years winters are mild, other years very harsh, long and very cold. Weather and climate are different things, and the weather is never the same. It changes and also if the sun energy received on January 1 at a particular place would be the same every year (which is not the case as the sender (sun) sends not always the same) it still would result in different weather as the energy received is only one from many, many factors that makes the weather. I think that the cooling effect due to reduced sun activity (if it exists) moderates anthropogenic warming impacts, the same other natural impacts on the climate would such as volcanic eruptions etc. We should realise that something as complex as climate has many contributing factors that lead to change. To assume that everything is caused by humans or everything by natural causes is far too simplistic. For that reason it is rather difficult to make any precise predictions of the future. So both (processes that contribute to warming and such contributing to cooling) not only can happen, but they do, and they always did. What now is sold as new ideas and change to previous scientific knowledge is actually nothing really new other than that one aspect from an extremely complex process is taken out and displayed as the whole truth.