Yes, it does look like a La Ninio is in the works. That's part of the natural short term variability. In addition, that's why one needs to look at longer time periods, instead of monthly data, such as you point to from Spencer and Christy's web site. The AMSU temperatures time series doesn't go back in time very far and there's some question to me regarding the validity of Spencer & Christy's earlier work with the MSU. After all, remember that I found an apparent discrepancy in their data over the Antarctic. Christy and Spencer's method of combining the AMSU with the MSU data requires a model, which only adds another source of possible error. Even Roy Spencer admits that there is a Greenhouse Effect:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/ As for the IPCC's definition of climate, they rely on earlier work. To quote from your link, they mention the "statistics of weather", as did I: "Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined. Observations can show that there have been changes in weather, and it is the statistics of changes in weather over time that identify climate change. While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences..." Your comment about hubris applies to you as well, I think. Here's a long blog post to show the problem: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-nobelists-climate-thoughts/ E. S. ..................................... On Sep 17, 5:02 am, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > Try this one for daily temps - and compare for at least this century - > heaps of fun. Unlike you guys. 2010 was trending to be the warmest > ever. > > http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ > > Have a look at this one - a very pretty picture - a big, big La Nina > in the central Pacific and a planet cooling off. Frigid, nutrient > rich and quite acidic water rising from the briny depths in the > Humboldt Current. I predict a huge increase in biological > productivity across the Pacific. > > http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.9.16.2010.gif [cut] > Study the NESDIS NOAA SST anomaly linked to above and combine it with > an understanding of the state of the ocean indices below - and you > might just get an appreciation of natural variation. > > http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/ > > The world is full of fools and charlatans - defined here as post > modernist types who have forgotten in their hubris, or never ever > understood, the need for an appropriate intellectual openness and > modesty. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
