Polar Ice Caps Melting ... on Mars

[Proprius]

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy. - Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report

See also Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says from National Geographic News.

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However, only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gathered by satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientifically reliable, he said.

But observations over those years were flawed by the space shuttle Challenger disaster, which prevented the launching of a new solar output detecting satellite called ACRIM 2 to replace a previous one called ACRIM 1.
That resulted in a two-year data gap that scientists had to rely on other satellites to try to bridge. "But those data were not as precise as those from ACRIM 1 and ACRIM 2,” Scafetta said in an interview.
Nevertheless, several research groups used the combined satellite data to conclude that that there was no increased heating from the Sun to contribute to the global surface warming observed between 1980 and 2002, the authors wrote in their paper.

Lacking a standardized, uninterrupted data stream measuring any rising solar influence, those groups thus surmised that all global temperature increases measured during those years had to be caused by solar heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide, introduced into Earth's atmosphere by human activities, their paper added.

But a 2003 study by a group headed by Columbia's Richard Willson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, challenged the previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and his colleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the period. - Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

Maybe "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was right after all. Has FayFreethinkers had presentations about climate change at its meetings, giving different points of view?

[Doug]

DOUG
We've mentioned the skeptical side of global warming, the anti-global warming arguments, but we have not had a presentation on it that I can recall. It isn't worth our time. The global warming skeptics have such a weak case that we can't bring ourselves to waste our time on it.

If you think we should pay more attention to these fringe elements, please take a look at the numerous posts we've had on our forum roasting the anti-global warming arguments.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Okay class. Let's take a moment to, once again, unpack some nice choice bits of anti-global warming, anti-science, right-wing propaganda.

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy. - Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report

DAR
That's curious. This supposedly refers to NASA data i.e. "NASA Scientists Report", yet when we follow the link we find ourselves at the "Heartland Institute."
Lets take a moment to look at these boys. Pop them into google and the very first hit is sourcewatch which informs us that they are a group devoted to...

***
"...opposition to the the Kyoto protocol aimed at countering global warming and promoting genetically engineered crops and products; it supports the privatization of public services; it opposes tobacco control measure such as tobacco tax increases and denies the health effects of second-hand smoke; it supports the introduction of school vouchers;, and it promotes the deregulation of health care insurance. Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks". The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[2]"

Oh, and they were the clowns that gave us this variation on a creationist conference:

"In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.[3]"

Anyone wanna guess how many climatologists were there? I bet you could count them on one hand (at best).

But I don't want to pass on this claim too:

"[Mars claim] lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy."

They don't provide any evidence for this but I dispute that claim, on several counts. But on to the next, it's late.

See also Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says from National Geographic News.

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However, only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gathered by satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientifically reliable, he said.

DAR
Looks like the same old sunspot and solar forcing claims, roasted around here many times.

SNIP... Scafetta said in an interview.

DAR
So who is this Scafetta guy? Is he a climatologist? No, I don't think so. He did write a paper:

“Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report,” by Monte Basgall, Duke University News & Communications, Sept. 30, 2005.

Maybe I'll get around to that one later. It's almost 3 years old now and it didn't over turn anything as far as I have seen.

Lacking a standardized, uninterrupted data stream measuring any rising solar influence, those groups thus surmised that all global temperature increases measured during those years had to be caused by solar heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide, introduced into Earth's atmosphere by human activities, their paper added.

DAR
Not true.

Maybe "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was right after all.

DAR
Maybe it was. Want to defend it? Please do. But I recommend you read this rather extensive thread first:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Has FayFreethinkers had presentations about climate change at its meetings, giving different points of view?

DAR
Years ago a fellow came forward with a suggestion for our mythbuster board. It was some standard anti-GW material, referencing The Oregon Petition etc. I was nearly completely ignorant of the arguments for and against GW at the time and used the opportunity learn about it. It only took a little investigating to see how bad that material was. I examined it completely open minded ready to follow the evidence where ever it would lead. If global warming was a crock I would have no trouble going after it, guns a blazing. Since then I have spent maybe a thousand hours investigating this stuff and posted many hundreds of posts on topics regarding global warming. And what I have found over and over is junk science put forward by right-wing folks with a political agenda. Really bad.

Bottomline: Global Warming is almost a little off topic for us, except to the extent that in the debate there is an opportunity to teach people about propaganda and really bad science.

If we were to have a presentation "giving different points of view" this would be a little misleading. It's like having a debate with a creationist. This can give the impression that in science there are "different points of view" regarding the veracity of evolution. But there is not. And likewise, in science there is not a debate about whether the earth is warming, or even that humans are causing much of it. There is a tiny group of noisy politically driven people who are good at manipulating the media and making much of the American populace's understandable ignorance of a complex science. This is not unlike the situation with creationists except that their driving motivation is religion.

So the answer to your question is no.

If you would like to read about the exchanges we had over whether to have a for and against presentation on the GW issue (in August of 2006), then you can read it in this thread.

Bottomline #2: If you think you have some information supporting the anti-global warming position I encourage you to post it here (as you have done above). I'll take a closer look at your material tomorrow, it's about 2:30 in the AM right now.

D.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Well it only took a few minutes to research this one, so I couldn't resist. Don't ever say we aren't the hardest working freethinkers around!

Make sure and read this article carefully "Proprius." Your article is dated November '05. Realclimate.org already had it roasted in October (they are climatologists, and they don't talk about politics).

***
5 October 2005
Global warming on Mars?

Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

SNIP to conclusion:

"Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…"

Don't forget to read the whole article here Proprius

And thanks for the post!

ps For more information directly responding to the paper mentioned in your post and the solar forcing claims in general, see here, here, and here.

[RobertMadewell]

Mars has seasons much like earth does, but they're about twice as long as earthly seasons. The ice caps do melt in summer and freeze back in winter. One pole melts while the other freezes then it reverses in half a martian year. Martian seasons are long, so it could look like a trend if observed over a short period of time. Is someone interpreting this seasonal fluctuation as a permanent global trend?

[Proprius]

Still reading all the old posts, but thought I'd link to some research that just came out.

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

Zagoni, the researcher, used to be a believer in catastrophic global warming, but has changed his mind. The punchline of the article is

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

Maybe RealClimate will eventually try to rebut this. Then again they may just do a smear job as is their MO according to articles like this - The RealClimate Political Action Committee. I must say it's poor form to smear or ban those who disagree from their blog.

[Doug]

Maybe RealClimate will eventually try to rebut this.

DOUG
Why bother? It looks like unfounded assertions not published in a real journal.

From Realclimate:
25 March 2008 at 5:20 PM
Something new has come up, and since there isn’t an open thread to post to, I thought I’d add it here.

http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Miskolczi%20- ... -March.pdf

I don’t have time to read it yet, nor is climate science my true expertise, but it sounds like the author, Ferenc Miskolczi, has rederived radiative transfer equations for a FINITE atmosphere (rather than infinite, as is done by Milne 1922) and the result is much less warming from CO2 absorption and a tendency for radiative balance not to wander much. This sounds counter to what I know about radiative processes, and I was hoping one of you would comment on this in a future blog entry, if it warrants it.

[Response: This paper is more nonsense of a piece with the unpublished MS by Gerlich and Tseuschner, though with the difference that this one is published in an obscure Hungarian weather journal rather than not being published at all. The main use of this paper is as an exercise in “spot the errors” for a grad student in radiative transfer. We could comment on it, but on the whole it’s more worthwhile to spend time commenting on things that have passed review in the more major journals and don’t have such obvious flaws (even if they nonetheless have flaws). –raypierre]

[Dardedar]

Still reading all the old posts, but thought I'd link to some research that just came out.

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

DAR
More junk from that ridiculous rightwing site DailyTech.

Proprius, take a few moments and read the roast I gave to the last piece of global warming denier junk Galt passed along from that ridiculous site. Their own links flately refuted them!

Miskolczi states... SNIP

Maybe RealClimate will eventually try to rebut this.

DAR
Some things don't even rise to the level of warranting a debunk, as Doug's quote shows. Here are some if you are interested. Are you interested in learning something about this? I hope so.

Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change, Part I

Schwartz' sensitivity estimate

Then again they may just do a smear job as is their MO according to articles like this - The RealClimate Political Action Committee.

DAR
What an absolutely ridiculous article. Why don't you post it and I'll roast it. It's filled with howlers. Considering a good chunk of it is a Wall-Street Journal article (notorious for patently false mis-information about global warming as I have posted many times) by John Fund, this should be no surprise. I liked this one:

"Mr. Lomborg himself leans left"

Hilarious. Lomborg is a slippery slimy right-wing liar (and I don't say that lightly, I once posted a link with 300 examples) who has been so consistently wrong on global warming that if he had any decency he wouldn't open his mouth about it again. He also has been thoroughly debunked on this forum. I would give you the links but I think you are getting behind in reading. Lomborg, a make-believe environmentalist and fast changing chameleon has changed his tune again. He now admits the warming but puts his energy and spinning skills into arguing that we shouldn't do anything about it. He has no formal training in climatology or any earth science. His Ph.D. is in political science and he teaches at a business school.

This one was good too. The author of your article writes:

"The Heartland Institute may be like the tobacco companies who once tried to convince the world that smoking does not cause cancer. I just don't know."

Someone in the comment section wrote what I was thinking:

"Don't know? Then find out, for Pete's sake. I don't get why people are so proud of being ignorant -- and staying that way. As a layman, I have looked directly at the AGW "skeptics", and they're -- almost without exception -- utterly wrong."

Bingo.

PROPRIUS
I must say it's poor form to smear or ban those who disagree from their blog.

DAR
Not at all. Realclimate is an award winning science blog, written by scientists for the purpose of discussing THE SCIENCE. They don't talk about policy or politics (although there is some subjectivity as to where those lines exactly are). There is lots of dissent in their comment sections. You don't give a drop of evidence that anyone got banned but if they did it was not for asking intelligent science questions! It was for spamming/trolling with propaganda which distracts from honest discussions of THE SCIENCE.
Course around here, all we get is the spamming of junk GW denier material after-which the poster quickly runs away to look for more, never thinking to stop and actually defend the material or learn something new.

The article you site mostly takes issue with the fact that realclimate wrote a piece pointing out the farce of the Heartland Institute's supposed global warming "science conference" which was widely, and quite rightly, ridiculed. The Heartland Institute having a "science conference" is like creationists having a science conference (they are having one in Rogers next week). All propaganda, no science. These people want credibility because they have absolutely none. You apparently quote this junk from this political advocacy group, The Heartland Institute, because you find it agreeable with some agenda. It certainly isn't because it is scientifically defensible.

As one fellow points out in a comment section of the following article:

According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement” and has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Heartland Institute is in no way a scientific organization. It is a propaganda mill.

The success of the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to disinform the American public about the reality of global warming cannot be underestimated. They successfully delayed serious action to reduce emissions (and the consumption of their products) by ten or twenty years at least. With ExxonMobil alone reaping annual profit approaching 40 billion dollars, the payoff for the paltry millions they’ve paid outfits like Heartland has been huge.

Now, here is a good careful explanation of why it is certainly fair to go after this Heartland Institutes "scientific" circus show.

***
What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap.

A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

* Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)

* At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.

* At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)

* Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there.

LINK

The challenge stands "proprius." Post something substantive debunking the mainstream scientific claims of global warming, and defend it. All Galt and Abel can do is post and run away like scared bunnies.

Maybe they are scared bunnies.

D.

[Proprius]

The journal that the Miskolczi article was published in was the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40

The RealClimate quip by "raypierre" doesn't even attempt to refute the paper. Instead, Raypierre tries to poison the well by calling the journal an "obscure Hungarian weather journal." We freethinkers can see through cop-outs like that! Unable to specify anything wrong whatsoever in Miskolczi's analysis, Raypierre wusses out by saying it's not worthwhile to refute! The RealClimate reply is unworthy of a freethinker.

The links Darrel provides don't address the Zagoni/Miskolczi research at all. The two links given address something different by Schwartz. Darrel, poisoning the well by cutting down DailyTech doesn't hack it. If you have any evidence whatsoever that counters Miskolczi's research, spit it out!

Darrel wrote, "Post something substantive debunking the mainstream scientific claims of global warming, and defend it." I did. I am waiting for a rebuttal (a serious one, not just poisoning the well) to the Miskolczi article.

Here is more evidence in support of Miskolczi's thesis:
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres by Miskolczi - a review

Here is an article showing that the late 20th century warming has stopped:
Example of Simple Linear Regression - global warming trends. This article shows 10-year linear regression graphs from four different data sets, and remarks

"One of the main claims of the theory of global warming is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause increasing temperatures. If temperatures stop increasing for long enough, while greenhouse gases such as CO2 continue to rise, then we could be justified in not believing the theory."

Perhaps 10 years isn't long enough for the chicken littles. I would ask how many years will it take for them to admit that global warming has leveled off or is in a downturn? 20 years? If the current level-downward trend lasts another 10 years will the hysteria cease? The article anticipates and rebuts some possible objections (like the too short a period one) and concludes

"I think it is a remarkable testament to the power of numbers, that one of the most complex and contentious issues of the time could potentially be brought down by such a simple statistical analysis. The IPCC model projections were only published in 2001 and are already looking very shaky. These projections are central to the IPCC mission. If the current stable temperature trend continues, put the AGW agenda on hold."

I expect an evidence-based response rather than more mud-slinging. Be a freethinker, not a chicken little.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Looks like Hogeye has changed his name.

Not one point responded to. A couple of new pieces of junk. Wish I had time. I have to work on our Springfest booth.

D.

[Doug]

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution."

DOUG
RealClimate hasn't done a thorough analysis of this yet, but one commentator said that the "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" is a straw man, that Miskolczi doesn't seem to understand how that term is used by climatologists with regard to climate change.

But it is far too premature to place much weight on Miskolczi's paper because it hasn't been examined carefully by his peers. That's how science works.

Given that all the other global warming skeptical claims have been unable to make a dent in the conclusion that human beings are causing global warming, I predict that Miskolczi's paper will turn out to be flawed.

Stay tuned.

[Dardedar]

The RealClimate quip by "raypierre" doesn't even attempt to refute the paper.

DAR
Right. He says it isn't worthy. He gave reasons. As a fellow once said:

"I don't throw stones at every dog that barks." --Winston Churchill

Instead, Raypierre tries to poison the well by calling the journal an "obscure Hungarian weather journal."

DAR
It is.

The links Darrel provides don't address the Zagoni/Miskolczi research at all.

DAR
That's a rebuttal? I went and reread this thread from top to bottom. You haven't responded to anything directly and much of what you have posted has been directly refuted. You just ignore it and move on. Try responding to points directly.

The two links given address something different by Schwartz.

DAR
Actually they don't but I read and posted them 3 weeks ago and I don't plan to read them again just so you can something new about them a month from now.

Darrel, poisoning the well by cutting down DailyTech doesn't hack it.

DAR
The DailyTech site is complete garbage as I have shown with references. The sources they quote directly contradict what they claim they say. This is a common problem with True Believers who don't read carefully. Their articles get ripped to shreds in the comment sections.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that counters Miskolczi's research, spit it out!

DAR
You posted that three weeks ago and I responded to it the same day. You stagger back now and comment three weeks later but do not respond to the points already made. I've moved on.

Here is an article showing that the late 20th century warming has stopped:
Example of Simple Linear Regression - global warming trends. This article shows 10-year linear regression graphs...

DAR
Sorry, grabbing a ten year section and isolating it, is absurd. You've been punked. The fellow knows this and tries to preemptively blunt this criticism but I don't find his attempt even remotely persuasive. And that's putting a lot of sugar on it.

...from four different data sets, and remarks

"One of the main claims of the theory of global warming is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause increasing temperatures. If temperatures stop increasing for long enough, while greenhouse gases such as CO2 continue to rise, then we could be justified in not believing the theory."

Perhaps 10 years isn't long enough for the chicken littles.

DAR
Your "chicken little" comment (Orton's favorite) is flatly refuted by the evidence, much posted here recently, showing the scientific estimations have been too conservative.
And no, as explained before, ten years is not long enough. When the last ten years are looked at in context, we find them to be likely the hottest in the last 1,000 years. Precisely in line with GW predictions. Unless you look at just the last ten years in complete isolation. But it would be really stupid to do that.

If the current level-downward trend lasts another 10 years...

DAR
You don't have your facts straight, again. We don't have a "level-downward trend." Observe this NASA chart:



Your claim is a particularly dishonest spin based upon a single high temp year artifact ('98). It's really nauseating because I can't hardly believe the GW deniers can make such a ridiculous mistake by accident.

Let's try an example. Military spin. Let's say it is understood that about 20-50 US military deaths per month in Iraq is a "good month." Let's say 100 would be pretty bad, 120 much worse. These numbers are pretty close to reality actually. Now if there was a one month spike to 150 killed, and then several months of about 140-150. This would allow the war supporters to make a chart and dishonestly isolate, cherry-pick, and average just these last few months and they could make it look like, hey, the war might be going in the right direction! Bullshit. Those numbers are not good, and the record global temperatures we have been recording are not good even though you can play a little, childish, averaging game with a single high temp year to make it look like we are approaching the smooth crest of a peak. Stop it. It's ridiculous.

will the hysteria cease?

DAR
You have never provided an example of hysteria. Not once. Perhaps if you try to, I might agree with it. I would be surprised if you couldn't find hysterical people on both sides of this issue.

The article anticipates and rebuts some possible objections (like the too short a period one)

[/quote][/quote]

DAR
It is getting really hard to take you seriously if you can bring yourself to believe that a cherry-picked ten year snap shot (which happens to contain 1,000 year record temps and the hottest ten years in the last century) is some how a problem for the standard scientific GW position. That is just stupid on stilts.

As I posted Feb 14, 2007:

"I'd recommend a good course in statistics. You are trying to generalize from a sample of 5-10 years. The warming has been going on for over 100 years, though the most recent phase of it has lasted about 30. Mean global annual surface temperatures are a random walk around a steadily increasing mean."



D.
--------------------------
"On February 8, 2007, climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that 2006 was the fifth-warmest year in the past century. GISS scientists estimated that the five warmest years on record were, in descending order, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2006. Other climatology groups ordered the years somewhat differently due to different measuring techniques, especially in areas with sparse measurements, but they also considered these years to be the warmest."

LINK