[gondramB]

Thanks for the response.

Would you help me understand your post a little better?

I looked at the climate audit page - it looks like the raw data is the same as the NASA page but there are two different fits to the data... Is that the main point? I guess you correctly figured that the chart I used was from NASA.

BTW, 1950/1951 is an imperfect choice to get a good view since 6 years earlier global warming basically stopped (one problem with human caused global warming is that global warming basically stopped between 1945 and 1976).

[ancient_geezer]

it looks like the raw data is the same as the NASA page but there are two different fits to the data.

There were two data sets, one 2000 and earlier from NASA which was nearly the same as GHCN, and the newest set put out by James Hanson's group, post 2000, that has been modified displaying a steeper trend by reducing temps in the 1920-30's and increase temps in the 90's present.

For abit of background, James Hanson, keeper of that data, is one of the big original pushers behind the global warming agenda.

BTW, 1950/1951 is an imperfect choice to get a good view since 6 years earlier global warming basically stopped (one problem with human caused global warming is that global warming basically stopped between 1945 and 1976).

Then why use the defaulted 1951-80 land only average as your baseline for anomaly which is essentially the same temperature.

 

And if we are down to cherry picking monthly data points to display, why highlight the January 2007 data which is an obvious outlier pushing the "trend" up nearly 0.2^oC above norm due to the current major El-Nina deviation.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

 

 

Rationally to best display trends one should pick an average of the 1950-1980 period to capture the centerline of the temperature cycle:

as representive overall center of cycle driving the show as the best baseline, and drop the January 2007 data point as not representative of the whole,(besides selecting Jan 2007 in the dataset to be plotted won't generate an annual average for 2007 until next December ;o/) and use annual trend data with the 1951-1980 baseline as reference.

With the resulting charts here -> GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature increment from 1951-1980 baseline to annual average trend 1951-2006 to best represent warming across the period what ever its cause.

Ohh, dear looks like not only Canadians barbecuing seals and polar bears, but the Mongolian hoards burning and plundering Siberia and the Far East doing it to us.

 

Or if one insists on Anomoly difference instead of trend in temperature,

--> GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature anomaly from 1951-1980 baseline to annual average 2006

 

One thing is for certain, one does not pick a single month's anomaly of land temperatures alone as representative of "global warming", especially when the single month selected is an outlier obviously due to an exceptionally strong El Nina as the the NASA/Hansen default chart selections do.[ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ ]

[ancient_geezer]

OOPs, messed up the first link somehow, here it is corrected, lets see if it works.

GHCNland/HR2SSTocean temperature increment from 1951-1980 baseline to annual average trend 1951-2006

[ancient_geezer]

Interesting, when selecting 2006 as last year of the interval, the NASA html form requests the 2007 Jan datapoint instead of following the limits as entered.

I had to manually adjust the URL "year_last" & "month_last" values to properly display what I intended to show, trends ending with Dec 2006.

A lesson to be learned, check and recheck when going to any website as to what is really being displayed. This one appears to demand adding in the Jan 2007 data point whether you want it or not.

[ancient_geezer]

An interesting result when we emphasize the warming trend by selecting 1975-2006 trend data to display.

It is claimed that warming is due to increases in CO₂ concentrations, the U.S. specifically is singled out as the the largest contributer to CO₂ emissions, by far.

The question the above charts raise, if CO₂ is the driver, why are the dominant warming trends everywhere but over the U.S.?

Since CO2 is considered a "well mixed" greenhouse gas in AGW theory, i.e. it is found in the same concentrations through out the global atmosphere, both north and south, why is the Antarctic mid continent in such a strong negative downtrend in temperature?

[ancient_geezer]

Doing a polar plot of the 1975-2006 trends in temperature, one gets an even better perspective of the areas affected.

If, according to AGW theorists, the little ice age was a local/regional phenomona isolated to the northern hemisphere, why is the supposed "global" warming that is predominately isolated to the northern hemisphere not a local/regional phenomena?

[ancient_geezer]

Doing a polar plot of the 1975-2006 trends in temperature, one gets an even better perspective of the areas affected.

If, according to AGW theorists, the little ice age was a local/regional phenomona isolated to the northern hemisphere to be discounted, why is the supposed "global" warming that is predominately isolated to the northern hemisphere with much the same pattern not a local/regional phenomena and not discounted?