Does this destroy sceptical arguments?Richard Treadgold | December 8, 2011
This is surely too good to be true for the warmists.
In the last few days of a failing international conference, here’s a paper carrying strong confirmation of global warming. It’s not attribution, of course, but nobody will notice that. Proof of warming is enough to tweak the guilt nerve.
The Washington Post says:
The global temperature series is one of the clearest pieces of evidence that the planet is heating up. Over the past century, it’s easy to see from, say, NASA’s data that surface temperatures have risen dramatically. But there’s also a fair bit of short-term natural fluctuation from year to year, which can sometimes obscure what, exactly, is going on.
Annual averages of the adjusted data.
The paper’s abstract states:
When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Ni˜no/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.
Would their “estimated impact” stand up to a robust challenge? The paper states: “It is worthy of note that for all five adjusted data sets, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record.” This is meaningless when you see that in the raw data for the CRU, RSS and UAH records, the peak temperatures are visibly highest at the 1998 El Nino and in 2010.
Raw data for five major global temperature records.
Since the records are “adjusted” to remove the influence of three “major factors” they no longer reflect reality, so it hardly matters what temperature the team calculates after the adjustments.