I'm sorry I didn't think there were time limits on trends...  as I have said b4...  how many years are you going to settle for.  Another 10 andother 20 another 30 another 40...  100 years 1000 years...  how many times will you keep moving the goal posts.

I've been very patient and waited 10 years b4 mentioning there is a trend.  Oh and guess what...  there is.  And in another 10 years and every year in between I'll be pointing it out to you.

Oh and BTW global average temps are recorded on a graph every year not every 10.  

One day you'll learn to read and understand graphs.  I hope  

Oh and here let me quote the article again for you...

Quote:


Afraid you'll have to get with the NEW scientific....  I note the words trend and cooling which I have already highlighted for you.  English cannot be that difficult for you.

NOTE THE USE OF THE DATE 1990S  GET IT YET?  HOW MUCH SIMPLER OR CLEARER CAN WE MAKE IT FOR YOU.

Quote:


HADCRUT...  GET IT?  TRENDING DOWN?  GET IT?  SINCE WHEN?????

nOT LAST MONTH BOYO...

You just cant accept it can you?

oh dear abandoned by HADCRUT....  what shall I do?

hello?  hello? is anybody home?

Get with it Muso...  1+1+1+  etc =10  the trend is DOWNWARDS
I've told you.
Other people I've cited have told you
The data tells you
the graphs show you

Yet still you choose to live in denial... 

The trend IS downwards...  repeat after me...  the trend is downwards.

Sheesh.

Is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology astroturfing too? Format might  be a little strange.  

WAITING FOR GLOBAL COOLING
by
Robert Fawcett and David Jones
National Climate Centre
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Melbourne, Australia
April 2008
Corresponding author:
Dr David Jones
National Climate Centre
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
GPO Box 1289, Melbourne, Vic 3001
Tel: 03 9669 4085
Email: d.jones@bom.gov.au

Summary

There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.

Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-toyear fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.

Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.

All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them.
2
Data
We use here three of the most prominent globally-averaged annual mean temperature anomaly1 data sets, one British and two American. Northern and southern hemisphere data sets are also available from these three sources. Australian (national) annual temperature data
have been obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology.............


(from Fawcett,  Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
December 2007) Edit - added full reference.

My cohorts now include the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Do you want me to quote some more authorities? I can if you like. Then it will be Grendel versus the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the British Met Office, NOAA, NASA, Météo-France, and the World Meteorological Organization.

Ok Don Quijote de la Mancha - We'll put it to a poll - not that polls are proof or anything.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:46am:



You've yet to explain what you think I'm denying.   Why don't you just email Dr Jones and tell him he's wrong?

I gave you his email address.

It is pathetic to go back to this garbage, to even try and argue that every year must be hotter than the year before, to accept Global Warming, is just reducing the argument to childish naivity.

The inconsistency of just what the denialists are arguing against becomes befuddling in itself.

1998 hottest year ever? Why? CO2?
No Way Jose, says the denialists, it is?
Solar activity.
Of course the fact that science disagrees with this contention does not deter them from repeating the lie ad infinitum.

Of course the fact that nine or ten of the hottest years ever recorded have been during this "cooling" period since 1998 does not rate a mention by denialists.

The "COOL" year of 2008, tied with 2001 as the eighth hottest year ever recorded.
2005 tied with 1998 as the hottest ever.
The 12 years from 1998 onwards include the ten hottest years ever recorded.
The decade from 1998 to 2007 was the hottest decade ever recorded.

Quite a cooling trend there Grendel.

Oh, you want to forget that stuff, and start again starting, Now, no Now, how about Now?

Push the start and finish points of where you want to measure from, or to, around, and I am sure you can find cooling periods in every set of data ever recorded, but it takes a denialist to then call that "evidence"


So, if you can tear yourself away from the denialist propaganda for a minute, try reading this brief scientific explanation Grendel.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-climate-warming-or-cooling.html

If we look at the models, we will probably not see the trend change upwards again until 2010, so then you can start blaming the sun, or something else again, but you just need to hold out until the next period of declining temps, to start rehashing this particular line of BS.

The trouble is that each decline in temperature, will be a "Temporary" decline from a new "RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE", and despite the protestations of the belligerently and wilfully ignorant, Global Warming will continue on, unabated, and unaddressed, if this lunatic fringe of spoilers have their way.

I could ask that if the period from 2010 to 2016 does happen to provide new record high temperatures, would you desist from rehashing this particularly silly line of denialist BS?
I think we both can predict an accurate answer to that one can't we Grendel?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:29am:


Some good points Mozza.

Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science

Quote:


Even for those of us that have pedestrian - average understanding of the scientific diciplines involved should understand this comment alone as common sense. Much of the other science at a general level is not insurmountable for the layman.

Much of the very detailed and complementary data does require a choice of where you confidence lies. Which does not mean that I expect the pro-warming science or statistics to be 100% accurate or understood. But I expect that with any science that is still learning, that being all of them.

From what I can understand Grendal, the denialist camp is the one you are sitting in.