If you start the chart from the peak that occurred in 1998, that would seem to be the conclusion. But as 1998 was not when global temperature measurements started, as you know, then it would be an incorrect assumption. Especially when you had all the other data points to consider. I would call it picking points on the chart to try to make a conclusion that was desired and that is not good science.
So has global temperature continued to climb before and after 1998? Yes of course it has. You did read that 2010 tied for the hottest year on record and that the last decade was the hottest on record?
Here is the global distribution of temperature rise averaged over 2010. Not a pretty picture, especially in the Arctic with the rapidly melting ice cube called the Arctic Ice Cap.
View attachment 3097
I'm sorry but you are interpreting your graphs quite incorrectly.These graphs are how much the temperature is above/below the baseline.the baseline is different for the four series-here it is if you like.
[TABLE="class: data"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]HADCRUT3--JAN61-DEC1990[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]GISTEMP--JAN51-DEC-1980[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]UAH--JAN1979-DEC1998
RSS--JAN1979-DEC-1998[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]So the graph does not show the temperature has been rising at an accelerated rate since 1998-in fact the rate of rise has declined despite the ever upwards rise of CO2 levels.The month with the highest average temperature was still in 1998,not 2010.And of course 2011 has started out cooler than 2010.
The predictions of temperature rise are based on the trend line which from 1979 has been rising at the rate of 0.13-0.17C per decade.
As anomyouscoward rightly points out it depends on where you start that trend line.He obviously trys to discredit me by my picking 1998 which as I said had the highest average temperature month in the last 160 years.But then why does the IPCC use 1979 as the start of their trend line?Oh yes there are all sorts of explanations but it also just happens to be the coolest year in the last 80 years therefore steepening the trend line.
And just remember the 1960s and 70s.Climate scientists then talked of Climate Change.But then it was the coming ice age as the trend line for 40 years was down-
Another Ice Age? - TIME
And a quote from that article-
Scientists have
found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds — the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
So the argument used by Gowatson explaining how the cold air in the western US was evidence of global warming was used then as evidence of a coming ice age.Also notice the reference to the recent Midwest's rash of disasterous tornadoes-then of course a sign of global cooling but now of global warming.
And anomyouscoward I really didn't get the point of your putdown about my having to go to a University Library to read a peer reviewed journal.In fact I read a peer reviewed journal at least every week.I read them at home,on holidays,even in a plane.I have read them in a Hospital library and shock horror I have even read them on the internet.However I do not just read those articles that agree with my particular biases.You obviously categorise me as a "denier".I am not.I have said I believe the Earth has warmed.I am sceptical though of many of the claims.Probably because I was involved in the Climate debate in the 60s and 70s.I was President of the Sydney university conservation society in 1969.We even had a debate at the Uni of the Effect on the Great barrier reef.
Some things just aren't that new.
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
