Particularly if you look at the CO2 trend over the same time.

Here are the CO2 growth rates from Mona Loa:

2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.25
2004 1.59
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
2008 1.58

Thus the total CO2 growth is 17.6 ppm, from 368 in 2000 to 385.6 in 2008.

But the preindustrial CO2 levels were supposedly 280, thus the anthropgenic increased level of CO2 is but 88 above normal in 2000, and thus the 17.6 ppm rise since 2000 represents an ~ 20% increase in anthropogenic CO2. (The CO2 forcing factors you see for CO2 discount the background level, see IPCC 2001)

So one can see the clear disconnect.

Anthropogenic CO2 has increased significantly
Methane is up a tad
NOx is also up
CFCs are steady

And yet the climate hasn’t warmed at all over this time frame.

In fact if you look at the UAH/RSS temps the opposite trend seems to be evident.

OOPS

Arthur

Here in “Ask Oxfprd” http://www.askoxford.com/askth.....ammar/data

Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, and should be used with a plural verb (like facts). However, there has been a growing tendency to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in American use, and in the context of information technology. The traditional usage is still preferable, at least in Britain, but it may soon become a lost cause. Compare with agenda.

Here’s Merriam, and American dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data

da·ta Listen to the pronunciation of data Listen to the pronunciation of data
Pronunciation:
\ˈdā-tə, ˈda- also ˈdä-\
Function:
noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Latin, plural of datum
Date:
1646

1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation 2 : information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful 3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed

usage Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns; and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun. Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, perhaps because the house style of some publishers mandates it.

In the US, “data are” has become a lost cause. A few people still try to enforce it, but most use it like “hair”. Hair may be singular. It may be plural. I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone say “datum”.

“Lucia types as fast as she thinks”

So do I, but I only type with one finger!

Off topic!

You tempted me with your capital IS. Data ARE finalized and data ARE used to create etc.. I guess it is a European obsession to honour the original Latin usage. It’s the same with the plural usage of the word media. We say the media ARE biased, for example.

Dave, I don’t think so. The rankings data (divisional and state) IS finalized, and it is the same data that is used to create the anomaly dot and contour maps. The rankings are anomaly rankings for those areas (division or state). I am guessing that NCDC just doesn’t consider those maps important enough to link them to the final data. Who knows?

Tuuka seems to have developed the misconception that we can’t learn anything at all from short amounts of data. That’s just incorrect.

““But we can learn something. And one of the somethings we can learn is that the current trend is consistent with the about 2 C/century of warming projected by the IPCC in the AR4.”

Are you using “consistent with” to mean “not statistically excluded”?

Also, I noticed you used the words “can learn” and not “have learned”. Was that choice of words significant?

“But we can learn something. And one of the somethings we can learn is that the current trend is consistent with the about 2 C/century of warming projected by the IPCC in the AR4.”

I don’t think you meant to say that. Did you?

Tuukka, I suggest you spend at least the same amount of time exploring this site as you do that other site you mention. If you do, and have bit of understanding of statistics, you’ll find that Lucia does take weather variability into account. Read the caveats she has given regarding her trend calculations. To say that trends of eight years mean nothing is foolish, as would be the opposite concusion that it proves a long term negative trend. What she shows is that a present trend as high as 0.2C/decade for the first portion of this century is unlikely, a conclusion that even Jim Hansen apparently now is accepting (although I hesitate to give great credence to his pronouncements based on his past history).

Lucia, I made the above reply before reading your response. If I’ve mistated your position too badly, feel free to delete.

Short term data doesn’t say anything about how temperature is going to change in the future since there is so much noise.

I didn’t say anything about predicting what is happening in the future using that graph.

If you removed the noise then it would make some sense. If you removed ENSO and NAO effect from the data there would be at least some sense to say something about the temperature record of this century and what it tells from the future.

How do you remove the noise?

What I do with these is use a statistical model that uses the noise properties to estimate the uncertainty in the trend, then compare to predictions. Large noise–>Large uncertainty. However, as long as uncertainty intervals fintite, rather than infinite we can say something and exclude some possible hypotheses or theories.

Were this not so, we would not even be able to say that the data since 1970 was inconsistent with no warming. It’s not as if those uncertainty intervals are zero.

The short time data doesn’t really tell us anything because of the large amount of noise.

It might be wise if you learned about how to interpret data from a broader base of sources. It is true we can’t learn everything from this short period; I have never said we could. We can’t learn the one very specific thing Tamino wants to focus on. That seems to be whether or not there is sustained warming. There is too much noise to reliabily distinguish between 0 C/century and say, 1 C/century of warming using only 8 years of data.

But we can learn something. And one of the somethings we can learn is that the current trend is inconsistent with the about 2 C/century of warming projected by the IPCC in the AR4.

“In my opinion, both types of graphs are useful in their proper context. The short term graph is useful when evaluating whether or not the IPCC projections are able to predict things that happen in the future. The longer term graph is more useful if we are trying to discuss whether or not data support the general hypothesis that warming has occurred.”

That’s nonsense. Short term data doesn’t say anything about how temperature is going to change in the future since there is so much noise. If you removed the noise then it would make some sense. If you removed ENSO and NAO effect from the data there would be at least some sense to say something about the temperature record of this century and what it tells from the future.

If you take any other dataset out of historical temperature records (since the beginning of the rapid warming which started like 50 years ago) which have showed declining temperatures for a few years, they have always been followed by rapid warming. Looking at the data we should expect rapid warming in the next few years instead of expecting that the temperatures aren’t rising at the pace the long time trend would expect. But that’s just guessing. The short time data doesn’t really tell us anything because of the large amount of noise.

I bet you have already read this: http://tamino.wordpress.com/20.....upid-does/

” something else I think is interesting is that the temperature anomaly data is never fully quality-controlled and made “final”. It apparently remains preliminary forever.”

Could this be because it is not possible to make it final as it is based on various uncertainties and always incomplete data?