Over land (globally), there’s been roughly a 1°C increase since 1980 (similar value for the continental US). So that’s the number we need to be discussing.

Secondly, according to the models, AGW only kicked in roughly 1980, so any changes prior to that would presumably be due to natural forcings.

Third, the effect of AGW isn’t symmetric over a day and season. If, for example, increased CO2 resulted in increased humidity as hypothesized, then increased nocturnal moisture content equals less heat loss equals warmer night time temperatures on cloudless nights. The planting zones are all about the maximum number of days below a given temperature, and that is generally set by cloudless winter nights, so you could expect a zone shifting more rapidly than would be expected by change in annual mean temperature for a region.

I’m not saying this is the explanation for what is happening (though it’s plausible), I’m simply pointing out that mean numbers can hide a lot of other effects, that are in fact observable by individual human beings.

…if you happen to live in a place where the trend was like 4-8°C/century then NECESSARILY there is an equal amount of people who should have noticed a decreasing trend by about the same amount .

I don’t think so. It is a matter of the area of greater warming compared to the area of lesser warming or cooling (and also a matter of population distribution, of course). For a start, land area is less than ocean area, so your 0.8C/century warming already embraces greater warming over a smaller area.

You suggest “at least 1 or 2 °C per few decades” would perhaps be observable. This GISS page representing maps of their ‘CSCI Index’ gives a view of evolution over four decades, with various regions accumulating gain to your suggested level and with no equivalent areas of equal cooling -

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/global/

And the effects have observable over a lifetime: For example, the shifting North of climate zones in the United States. I have lived long enough to have seen that. Any gardner will have noticed a change since 1970.
.
That was precisely my point that Greenpeace of course totally missed .
You do not observe 0.8° C per century . NOBODY does . 0.8 is 0 for all practical purposes .
What you , perhaps , can observe are at least 1 or 2 °C per few decades what is equivalent to some 4-8°C per century . So about 5-10 times the global average variation .
But , and this was the important point , if you happen to live in a place where the trend was like 4-8°C/century then NECESSARILY there is an equal amount of people who should have noticed a decreasing trend by about the same amount .
It is obviously necessary because the global average may only increase by 0.8 .
So the right formulation , especially in your example should be “Over one or two particular decades at a particular place I have observed things that are consistent with an important temperature variation .”
Again very obviously that doesn’ mean anything for the whole USA let alone the Earth during a century .
.
I have been coming to Boston area in a regular way since the mid 70ies and I can contradict your observation by saying that when I have been there this year , I didn’t see any “climatic” difference to what I remember from 30 years ago .
.
As for Europe (much more north than USA) , I have a garden too and I have observed nothing . It still rains , summers are hot and it snows in winter . The trees are on their place , a bit bigger after 30 years and cherries still taste the same . Last year was very cold and 1976 was one of the hottest years with 2003 I remember . Ah yes , bugs , worms and moles are doing the same mischief . Etc .
.
The point being , I repeat it again for slow people like Greenpeace – if the average varied by about 0 over a century , then there is about an equal amount of warming and cooling local “observations” .
If only large warming “observations” took place then either the observations or the global variation would be fake .
I add that only a decadal “observation” would be irrelevant anyway because short term is supposed to be weather .

Another source for the same data.

“If you feel disinterested to believe those are real…you’ve got issues.”

This doesn’t sound so forgiving.

Andrew

If you feel disinterested to believe those are real…you’ve got issues.

“the (fill in here) …is sound data”

I’ve heard similar claims before.

Forgive me if I’m still a Lil’ Skeptical.

Andrew

I understand your reservation regarding the length of the GRACE records. And there are other reservations as well, of course – PGR measurement, etc. It is good that we have these observations now, and our knowledge will increase going forward.

It doesn’t matter if you think the agreements with other countries are unimportant — if they exist, and apparently they do, under the law, they are legitimate grounds to refuse releasing that data. It seems as if the FOI office made its ruling on that basis.

So, please correct me if I’m misunderstanding — 98% of the data is available to everyone, Steve McIntyre included. 2% of the data covered by agreements with other countries is not available.

You refuse to accept the FOI office’s ruling because you don’t think those agreements are valid or important enough? So, you think the law can be ignored because you think those countries aren’t important enough?

Perhaps it is you who is unwilling or unable to appreciate that others see the issue differently and come to different conclusions.

Thanks for the info. I’ll put the little ice age book on my list.

However, your arborday.org link containes this:

“Global Warming Information Resources
Helpful links to trusted resources.”

Which includes:

“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is currently starting to outline its Fifth Assessment Report which will be finalized in 2014.

The US Environmental Protection Agency offers comprehensive information on the issue of climate change.

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the world’s largest active archive of weather data, provides answers to frequently asked questions on global warming.

Research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at Columbia University in New York City, emphasizes a broad study of global climate change.

This Web site for An Inconvenient Truth provides references to scientific evidence and research on global warming.”

Advertised as trusted resources? Are you freakin’ kidding me?

Andrew

I’m not complaining.

Again, Antarctic Ice Melt is becoming less and less

Which actually is consistent with the models for a warming Earth, due to an increase in precipitation. (Though technically what is happening is increased melt close to the coastline more than offset by increased accumulation inland.)

The same effect is expected for the Greenland interior too.

If one accepts that the computed variation has been something like 0.8°C in a CENTURY what is 0 for all practical purposes , then only 2 cases are possible :

That’s global average, but it’s not uniform: The effect is larger over land than ocean. The effect is larger as you go farther north. There is seasonal variation in the effect.

And the effects have observable over a lifetime: For example, the shifting North of climate zones in the United States. I have lived long enough to have seen that. Any gardner will have noticed a change since 1970.

You wrote:

“In other words, the FOI office believed it was more important to ensure that relations between the CRU and other nations providing information were maintained by honoring contracts than giving some retired minerals consultant and his cabal the right to dick around with the data and make outlandish and unfounded allegations about hoaxes and frauds.”

I’m glad you didnt avail yourself of all the facts. In previous FOI decisions CRU have said the following.

1. On the word of Jones they BELIEVE that these agreements exist. We asked that they search for these agreements and they came up with virtually nothing. Do you see the problem with this? Jones claims that these agreements were made. At first he told them he remember that the agreements said the information could only be transmitted to other academics ( like peter webster). Then we had an academic request the information. And those were denied. Basically jones is making shit up. The other problem is this. by relying on missing agreements to render a decision the FOI office encourages losing documents. You see how? When McIntyre first asked jones said that the agreements precluded release to non academics because he had been caught shiping the data to webster. And the only way he could prevent that was by inventing this condition in a document that he lost.
As the FOI office writes: “In response to your first point in your email of 24 July regarding the non transmission of data to non-academics, I have concluded that the reference to non-academics was in error and that the status of yourself, or any other requester, is irrelevant to the factors to consider regarding disclosure of the requested information.”

THE REFERENCE TO NON ACADEMICS WAS IN ERROR. what that means is this. In a earlier rejection the FOI office talked to jones and jones told them he remember the agreements precludeed release to non academics. When we questioned this on appeal, they decided “the reference” was wrong. The problem remains what were the conditions of these missing documents? Did they expire? were they legally binding? tons of questions BUT jones is there to fill in the details by memory. trust him to do that?

2. By looking at the station list ( list of station names– not the data) and by looking at a leaked file we determined that a VERY SMALL percentage of the data could in fact be covered by agreements. That is over 98% of cru data is freely available at GHCN. In fact in previous requests CRU have argued that ALL the data is freely available at GHCN, but then jones “remembered” that this wasnt the case. Anyways, we know that the number of countries that MIGHT have agreements is very small.

3. CRU did publish the agreements that they could find.

A. some agreements with BRITISH TERRITORIES. And now they argue on appeal that if they give us the data, these british territories may not give them data in the future. Well, those territories are subject to the same WMO guidelines that REQUIRE THEM to cough up the data.

B. An agreement with Norway. This agreement said very little about giving the data to others.

C. an Agreement with Spain. This agreement HAD NOTHING in it about transmitting to third parties.

D. an agreement with Bahrain.

So there you have it. CRU is afraid that these data sources will be comprimised. Does that make any sense to you?

Finally, the FOI office cannot take into consideration ( as it did) whether or not McIntyre would use the data to make outrageous claims. the FOI doesnt permit such a consideration. The public has a right to the information. This right is assumed to have priority.

The edits “took” (for some reason they do not show up on your computer monitor until somebody else posts on the same thread.

But I honestly thought saying “point the miss” was by design, and quite humorous.