Just also saying thats a NH temeprature history. In comparison here is GISS with NH temperature history:


Similar shape. The full range of the old one is just over 1 degree. GISS over the same period ranges by maybe about 0.7, so GISS has reduced the variation.

Also consider that is roughly the data scientists had availabe when the conclusion that Co2 will cause warming was first seroiusly pushed. Obviouisly this conclusion was not based on extrapolating trends. Shortly after they launched some satellites to monitor temperature, and ever since temepratures have gone up exactly as they said they would.

Mike - a bit of consistency please...

You are happy to use the adjusted GISS temp graphs at any time, and then claim that the satelites show the same trend when you know that they have not been adjusted for the volcanic impact. That is just the attitutde that has got us into this acrimony. Politically expedient - not honest.

Huh? Which volcanic impact? GISS hasn't been adjusted for volcanic impact? Or satellites not adjusted for volcanic impact? What difference would it make if they were adjusted for the impact?

Who on this forum would be willing to place a bet that the next decade 2010 to end 2019 will be cooler than this one?. I would very dearly love to see that happen.

Who that is still skeptical of a "human" induced warming trend would be reconsidering their position if the next decade was warmer?.

That really depends upon whose taking the measurements Snowmi and how they're rporting them. Given recent events I'd be too concerned about the difficulty in obtaining unadulterated data.

Lets just say for Australia then. I am quite satisfied with the BOM data, it all agrees well with my own.

Raw unadjusted data I don't have an issue with but this seems to be seldom sufficient to prove or disprove long term warming/cooling trends. My question would be just how much manipulation of the data is going to be required in the coming decade to show continued warming. And to what lengths are "climate scientists" prepared to "adjust" their models to get the result they want.

To be blunt, you may trust those who are reporting the data because it fits nicely into your little "global warming" box but I certainly don't.

Hey Locke, its not that hard to prove for yourself, just download the data from BOM for a few of the high quality climate stations like (Bathurst Ag Station is one) and add up the numbers yourself. There is no adjusting just as it is and as it happened. Add up this decade for a few stations spread around the country and then add it up for the next decade. You can keep a running tally to see how the decade travels. If you can get a lower set of numbers for next decade then I would be very pleased.

For 1, I don't care if it gets 1/2 degree warmer, I'll grow more turf, and tomatoes. I don't ski because its to bloody cold but after seeing the last few years on the Alps of Nth East Vic continually having bumper snow seasons, I doubt it very much that it will happen. We have 100% full dams, so no water restrictions for the last 3 years, still green paddocks, Murray Cod and Crayfish fighting each other to jump on a hook in extremely healthy rivers. Personally, I can't see what all the fuss is about???

Ever heard of the Murray-Darling rivers Simmo?

Yes I have. Our two rivers flow straight into it???
Have a look at this picture at Swan Hill 1914. Its happened before.....

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Dry%20Murray%201914%20blog.JPG

Snowmi, are you saying that none of the Australian stations will show cooling in the next decade compared to the period 2000-2010 based on raw data? If so then I'm happy to take your money.

But I really don't think thats what your saying. If we look at an overall average based on raw data, including all stations then I'd probably expect some warming as urban areas expand further.

Outside of this, if we are really entering a cool PDO phase and lower solar activity my money would probably be on a colder decade. It really depends though on how big an impact UHI plays and whether there is a reliable data set that can eliminate this impact.

I'm also not sure just how sound our ability is to accurately and reliably monitor large scale temperature trends.

For your interest mm. The Murray system has survived worse heat and drought well and truly before and I'm sure it will survive any heat and drought thrown at it in the future

http://www.agta.asn.au/htm_files/conf06/presentations/kirk_l.pdf

Simmo...you need to tighten up your game...one minute your saying...Oh there is no global warming...the next..oh I dont care my tomatoes will grow better...which is it? The latter seems to suggest you agree there is a marked warming....you just dont care because it wont effect you..also known as NIMB (Not in my Backyard) syndrome, an aussie speciality.

There's no doubt in my mind that cycles in temperature (and rainfall) will continue. My analysis of rain cycles suggests, at least for coastal NSW, a wetter cycle of years especially towards 2013-2016. The late Carl Smith arrived at a similar conclusion via a seperate 'helicopter' to me (I think it had to do with a long term soi cycle related to solar activity). His results are somewhere way back in another thread (I think it was a global warming one now long discontinued).

Monitoring trends is largely a matter of statistics, which, as we all know, can be easily manipulated, and which therefore require great care on the part of researchers. Even in my own work it's sometimes been a vexed question as to how much of the cyclical signal is noise, and how much is the cycle.

On the river topic, from also having a fairly major river run straight through my property let it be known Australian creeks and river systems are flood/dry eco-systems meaning they are usually one or the other, only flowing consistantly for a short period of time if rainfall is consistant (Which its hasnt in the last 12 years). They are NOT European river systems where they run 24/7 every day of the year, which is the way we have been/still are reeking havoc on our waterways with 'environmental flows'.

Yes the murray and many of its tributarys went bone dry, yes they would have gone dry this decade if it wasnt for the lock/weir/dam systems, And yes IMO the period between 1850~1900 and 1930-1940s was hotter and drier than it is currently. It is difficult to analyse properly as Locke has proven without the raw data and lack of temperature data pre 1900s because the technology simply wasnt around then. Sadly we only have a small fraction of data during a very small cycle of the countrys temperature evolution.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weath...e=36&p_month=13

My local BOM WS, AFAIK unaffected from UHI

Locke, I am saying that if AGW is correct then more than 1/2 the stations in Australia will be warmer in 2010-2019 than they were in 2000-2009. I am still willing to reconsider my position depending on what happens in the next 10 years. But given 70's were warmer than 60's, 80's were warmer than 70's, 90's were warmer than 80's, 2000's were warmer than 90's. Would you be willing to bet that 2010-2019 will be the first decade in a long time to buck the trend?. Without AGW I would say yes the trend will be bucked, but I am just not sure atm and will be very pleasantly suprised if the trend is bucked.

Simmostruf, with your picture of 1914 you are failing to take into account that there was no Snowy Hydro Scheme so the comparison is irrelevant. If there was no scheme now the rivers would have been dry years ago.

Anyway no one has really answered my question yet that is what would you be thinking if the next dacade turned out to be warmer than this one.?

PS the heat island effect is in reality quite irrelevant and if you worry about it use the rural stations only. It actualy turns out that the temperature rises in rural areas have been greater than in the urban ones.

The same thought i have now. There have been hotter cycles before and there will hotter cycles than this in the future, no doubt about it.

Whether we got a warmer period would depend more on the cyclical nature of climate and weather. To put this another way, man-made warming surely couldn't be so great that centuries of climatic cycles would somehow be disturbed.

I'd go along with Cutofflow's perspective at this stage.

Let's remember too that this isn't a GW thread (even though it's food for thought), just to give the moderators a bit of respite.

Severly, I have never said there is no global warming, its been warming ever since the end of the last ice age... its just now levelled out and heading down, and thats against the ipcc's guess that temp's will continue to rise because of rising breath levels of us evil humans enjoying our lives to much. Well surprise, it ain't happening sunshine!!!