A classic case of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Fortunately, the Indians and Chinese will save us from our own folly. They are refusing to destroy their economies on Al Gore’s altar. Good for them!

In the meantime, let’s hope reason is restored before we do something really stupid.

—

I have an idea: If there “is no trend since 2002″, then obviously there can be no need and no requirement to jam a 1.6 trillion tax increase down our throats by September. Or October. Or November.

So can we wait until there IS a trend since 2002, and determine what magnitude that trend IS, and what direction that trend will be BEFORE we make a 1.6 trillion dollar mistake?

Give me a physical, data-sourced real reason for the rush.

Any errors or omissions in the graph are being created BY your fellow AGW ecotheists, NOT by the blog owner.

Now, as to the rest of your points – and, “Yes, I do have several classes and a couple of degrees from all sorts of math, stats, physics, measuring, accountability, reliability, etc.” Plus a few dozen more in thermodynamics, quantum physics, nuclear physics, radiation, materials, heat transfer, fluid flow, mechanicas, dynamics, electronics and wave theory, etc. However, I am a responsible individual, not a self-annointed “climate PhD-who-happens-to-fake-his-data-and-hide-his-research-and-methods. As a morally responsible individual, I don’t succumb to the peer-pressure and funding issues that Mann, Hansen, Jones, Gore, and other AGW heroes feel is their right.

HAD CRU, Mann, Hansen, Jones are still hiding their data. None have released their methods, and even their simplest temperature records manipulate the raw data, hide the methods, and repeatedly recalculate early data to create long range increases: Their “corrections” reduce temps early (before 1970) and inflate later readings = An artificial rise. Yet they fight releasing their raw data.

Temperatures in the mid 30’s and early 40’s were as warm as the late 1990’s. But those early real world measurements – as in this graph – are lowered from +.45- +5 degrees C to +.2 degrees. Why? They won’t say.

Sure – given that type of manipulation, you can create (from nothing) a +.5 deree rise over a century: Temp’s have been going up since the mid-1750’s. Today’s rise continues that trend – nothing man-made needed. On top of the long-term 800 year cycle of 2.0 degrees range, there is a short-term 70 year cycle of about .2 – .3 degree range.

We saw that oscillating growth from 1900 through 1935, decreasing from 1940 through 1975, increasing from 1975 through 1998. And yes, I chose to “growth” deliberately used! – today. We see the decrease today from , and temps will continue to decline up through 2025 or 2030. (Only extremists who can’t draw curved plots can miss it.)

We are now at the top of the oscillating ramp: why are you suprised that temp’s from 2000 through 2009 are high? Of course they are high! You can stand 5 feet one of a mountain, move ten feet to theother side, and STILL be higher than the people in the valley below. (You will be going still be going downhill even though you are higher than you were walking up the mountain.)

By definition, an oscillating sine wave will be going up and down – pick your period, your point on the curve, and you can get all sorts of “linear” slopes. And any line you pick will be wrong. But the trend NOW – today, after your supposed global warming of 1/2 of one degree, is DOWN. The long-term trend is oscillating up and down = NOT STEADY.

The very long term? Another Ice Age. We are overdue by a few thousand years.

CO2 vs temperature rise? Early this century, CO2 was steady, temp’s rose. Middle of this centruy? CO2 rose, temps fell. Last 25 years of this century? CO2 rose, temps rose. Now? The last twelve years? CO2 rose, temp’s were steady and are slowly falling. How a period do you need to find a relationship?

Hansen’s 1988 theory is simplistic and incomplete. It cannot explain ANY of the past 2000 years of climate changes. (Well, it almost explains part of one 25 year part of one century of those 2000 years.) It cannot explain why the Dark Ages began, why the MWP exists, why the LIA decreased temp’s later on, nor why the ice cores show temperatures increased 800 – 1000 years before CO2 increased hundreds of housands of years before that. There are no problems in the data – only in the excuses and attempts to prove that the data doesn’t exist.

Your quote ” no-one ever showed a 1980-1995 graph and claimed it was ‘proof’ of a relationship” is utterly false: Mann’s contrived and debunked “hockey stick” curve shows exactly that! And that graph was used 5 times in one IPCC report, plus hundreds of times afterwards, inclusing millions of presentations of Gore’s propaganda piece. The above graph, and hundreds of similar equally incorrect are used in thousands of propaganda pieces since 1988 – and similar 1:1 (or a few times as log 1: 1) graphs are the entire basis of Mann, Jones, and Hansen’s own papers.

Perhaps hunter should read up on the meaning of the word plagiarism.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Hunter’s understanding of global climate change is just as poor as her understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect. In other words, it is so poor that arguments must be reduced to parroting someone else’s words.

More importantly if only time is used as an explanatory variable the slope term picks up all the variation over time in the underlying explanatory variables. This will often mean that the residuals from the OLS equation are not normally distributed. Any modern econometrician would immedialtey suspect mispecification, and, as Ross McKitrick notes in a paper linked to below “But the
non-normality of the residuals often points to an error in the specification of the trend equation. A time
series model that makes use of information about the physical process being modeled, and which yields
independent and/or homoskedastic residuals without applying special statistical corrections, would be
considered a better procedure for detecting any trends in the data.”

When he does so he finds “we discuss alternate strategies and
then show how they affect empirical estimates of the magnitude and significance of the trend coefficient in
surface and tropospheric anomaly data. It turns out that the better the fit of the trend model, and the closer
we get to Gaussian residuals, the smaller is the estimated trend and the less significant is the coefficient.”

Perhaps Hunter should take a course in econometrics.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/surface.pdf

hunter (the hysterical one),
Why are near surface station measurements diverging from satellite? Shouldn’t the LT be warming at a faster rate than 2M from the surface? The divergence is increasing with each passing year.