That's why spikes shouldn't be used to evaluate trends. Yeah, but you started it. ("Remember that it's warmed up globally about 0.4 C since 1975. That's a big spike.
I guess it depends on your definition of "spike".
I was thinking about those links you posted (BTW what do they have to do with "data quality?) trying to support global warming theory with anecdotes, when I saw this today, Many in China to greet new year without power Millions struggle to get home amid 'coldest winter in 100 years'
A lot of people are going to die from this little weather spike before it is all over. If China were bound by Kyoto can you imagine how they would cope with cold weather like this if they could no longer heat their homes with fossil fuels but were restricted to wind and solar power.
Cold kills more people than warmer weather. If the Earth cools off it is going to be much worse than a heating trend .
I guess it depends on your definition of "spike".Yes, I agree, my phraseology was unfortunate. A 0.4 C rise in 30 years is not a spike. (It isn't based on a valley-to-peak maximum difference, either.)
I was thinking about those links you posted (BTW what do they have to do with "data quality?) trying to support global warming theory with anecdotes, when I saw this today,
What I posted is not anecdotal. Each of the articles is about an observation of a trend. A spring thaw a month early is an anecdote, as is one bitterly cold winter. A trend of spring thaws a week earlier over a century is a shift of significance BECAUSE it shows a change in one direction of a highly variable occurrence. The tropopause height is a clear indicator of the state of the GLOBAL climate -- it essentially synthesizes everything occurring above and below and reacts.
The reason that this is about data quality is that the natural trends are in the same direction as would be indicated by the data. This means that though it may be necessary to keep refining the error bars on the direct instrumental observations, the data and the trends provide mutual support. Everything "fits".
I was originally responding to this comment:
Before we do that we should first determine how much of the temperature rise is real or caused by: (list of instrumental problems)
In essence I was saying that most of the temperature rise has to be real, or otherwise we would not be seeing the significant shifts in natural indicators.
BTW, the correct term for this is "phenologic". A couple of years back there was a big paper about this. Let me look...
Got it. "Ecological responses to recent climate change", 2002. Google Scholar indicates it has been cited 853 times. That's impressive. What I'm still looking for is a free copy...
Here we go. It's a PDF.
Ecological responses to recent climate change
It's not a hard read. Take a look. When you're done, please answer the following question:
If there was no instrumental data at all, just the observations of the trends in the paper, what would be the logical conclusion regarding the direction of change for global climate?
Thanks.