Do some reading for a change.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 23 December 2012 9:01:16 AM
______________________________________________________

Cohenite
By the way Giss, and NCDC use nearly twice as many data points as HadCRUT3, also HadCRUT3 uses fewer data points in the high latitudes. This is an issue because the effect of GHGs is likely to greatest in those locations. Nevertheless the difference between 1998 and 2005, and 2010 is pretty small.

A problem you seem to be unaware of is that natural fluctuations can be bigger by an order of magnitude over the short term, but in the long term the underlying trend dominates, for example the waves on the beach go up and down much more than the tide in the short term, but in the end it is the tide which is dominant.

Sites such as wattsupwiththat and many others are just plain junk, I strongly suggest you broaden your horizons, and do some serious reading of the real science.

I suggest you start here
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/26/new-theory-proves-agw-wrong/

"The conclusion is that if AGW is real and caused by increased CO2, natural variation must dominate it."

Well der, glad to see you catching up with what the actual climate scientists have been trying to explain for more than a decade.

What's next in the great wave of scientific discovery?

I can't wait.

Bugsy says:

"Well der, glad to see you catching up with what the actual climate scientists have been trying to explain for more than a decade."

Tell that to Foster et al, you nasty little man:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012960.shtml

warmair, I am a frequent visitor and commentator at SOD; I am not interested in being told what to read by supercilious devotees of the scam of AGW; you present your evidence to me and we'll go from there.

You say GISS uses twice as many data points as HadCrut; it also discards more too, particularly ocean areas with seasonal ice such as the Pacific oceans and the Arctic and covers for that by extending land data to the deleted ocean data.

This creates a a false warming as GISS shows in the Arctic and Antarctic, which is contradicted by the satellites. This explains why GISS is the outlier amongst the main global temperature indices, and the choice by devotees of the AGW scam.

"Tell that to Foster et al, you nasty little man"

Oh, ouch! You cut me deep with your ad homs Mr lawyer man.

Anyway I don't have to, they already know.
But you don't seem to know that they know, or indeed know what they know, you know?

Of course the climate forcing effects are dominated (but not driven) by natural variability, if it were the other way around we would not be having this little friendly exchange on the interwebs.

"But you don't seem to know that they know, or indeed know what they know, you know?"

I think I know:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1828v1.pdf

The issue is whether natural variation which can cause warming in a +ve phase can also produce trend beyond a complete natural cycle.
The WHOLE of AGW is based on the assumption that natural variation cannot produce a trend and the complete natural cycle sums to zero.

An heroic assumption, and a stupid one; but then AGW devotees generally sum to zero so anything is possible.

Yeah, Bugsy!

Those "skeptics" are busy delving into cutting-edge stuff while you're waffling on about climate science.

See this for instance:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/22/too-funny-i-send-mike-mann-a-free-wuwt-calendar-as-a-christmas-gift-and-he-goes-full-conspiracy-theory/#more=76172