And if you sort by year, with 116 being the hottest year, 2011,2010,2009 and 2008 didn’t even break 100.
The 1930s had 4 years ranked 100 or above.
The 1950s had 2 years ranked 100 or above.
1921 was ranked 113 – the 4th warmest ever.
This is a pretty average decade.
incandecentbulb –
blockquote>“too much concern” is “too much” but otherwise political correctness is okay, is that it?
I think that concern about what is “politically correct” is valid – because it of it reflects a consideration of accuracy in language and consideration about how others react to our language – both of which I think are valuable considerations.
What I have a problem with is when people are selectively “concerned” about political correctness – as I believe is illustrated, beautifully, in your comment above.
I find that kind of selectivity to be instructive – to see the least, none the less when it is evident in the thinking of someone who self-describes as a “skeptic,” but also amongst those who self-describe as “realists.”
Anteros, I agree there is a dimension of harm, and we should plot views along two axes: warming and harm/benefit. Generally those who believe in more warming also believe in more harm, but I would submit that everyone’s error bars on the harm axis are much larger than on the warming axis. This is not an exact science in that direction.
Warming versus Harming. Neat in some way.
Joshua -
If I may jump in here. Are you not getting a tad ahead of yourself with people who ‘self-describe’ as realist? You rarely describe yourself in any specific terms – which is fair enough – and I’m yet to hear anyone else call themselves a climate realist [except me, but I think I mean something different to you 
] so that would leave a sort of ‘empty set’ which doesn’t quite chime with there being self-described realists….
I accept that a big part of the ideological battleground is to take command of the terms used, but surely the first task is to get significant numbers of others on board with your usage?
Don’t forget that there are a few people heading in a seemingly opposite direction to you with ‘believer’ and ‘dissenter’ although to me that seems an eminently neutral taxonomy. Particularly because it leaves a lot of room for the genuinely unconvinced in the middle. And it doesn’t allow me to use ‘alarmist’ 
There are many in the climate debate who intentionally conflate AGW and CAGW. Poll questions are most commonly worded in a way as to make no distinction – doubting that AGW is “primarily” causing current warming, or that it will have catastrophic results, becomes by implication “denial” that the earth has warmed since the last ice age, or that CO2 (all other things being equal) can cause warming.
Those who intentionally conflate the two are almost always the CAGW activists. They seek to marginalize their political opponents as anti-science.
But there are many who conflate AGW and CAGW because that is what they see done all the time. They are for the most part what I call default progressives, who follow the group think, without really analyzing it. I get the impression that Seitter falls in this second category. Everyone he works with believes that AGW is C, everyone he socializes with ditto. And CAGW just happens to call for the kind of political action he favors politically by default. He is likely rarely exposed to dissenting opinion.
To fully and fairly articulate the variety of opinions among skeptics, he would have to actually read what they write, think about their arguments, and understand them. And for most of his tribe, that is simply asking too much. Skeptical positions are to be ridiculed and dismissed, not considered and debated.
I think he genuinely sees himself as reaching out to those with whom he disagrees. And for someone in his tribe, he is. Publishing and commenting in a courteous tone on Dr. Curry’s writings is, for a CAGW believer, a major achievement.
Omno
Do not thwart an enemy retreating home. If you surround the enemy, leave an outlet; do not press an enemy that is cornered. These are the principles of warfare.
Unless it is personal then I recommend
The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.
Josh,
Let’s see now, lefties are on a roll on the Hayhoe case. And you, Josh, as Climate etc.’s alpha greenshirt leg-humper, are in the forefront of that “big-move” in your (hump! hump!) leg-humping best form. .
Let’s unpack your little lefty (hump! hump!) tactics here, Josh: Someone (moi) introduces a cautionary thought. That is, someone (again, moi) introduces a hypothesis consistent with all the known facts of the Hayhoe case (at least those known to you Josh and moi). And that alternative hypothesis is a plausible one that takes into account the lefty propensity for engaging in deception, as little boys and girls of the left have shown in matters of love, war, and politics since the stone-age. For that, someone (once again, moi) gets the standard lefty, close-minded, uncritically thought-out bum’s-rush (hump! hump!): CONSPIRACY THEORY!
Think about it, Josh, are there no lefty “false-flags”, no lefty used-car salesmen who mis-represent their wares, no lefty politicians who pretend one thing while doing another, no lefty, wannabe lover-boys on the make with a (wannabe hump! hump!) “line”? In your world Josh, apparently not. Everything lefty is to be taken at face value. Every lefty “false-flag” is to be uncritically received as presented. But not in my world. When an event becomes an adopted pet-booger of the left and is then lavished with solicitous lefty hype in service of the “cause”, in the manner of the Hayhoe case, then I get suspicious. Sergei Kirov-suspicious. And the lavish state-funeral doesn’t impress me or cause me to abandon my caution, either.
Again, Josh, the “facts” in the Hayhoe case that support your “cut” (which you’ve accepted with the uncritical, zealous enthusiasm of a true-believer) equally support my speculative, alternative, “conspiracy-theory” hypothesis. The only difference between the two of us? I keep a critical-thinking, open mind in the matter and am not “hard-over” on either or any hypothesis until I get a better investigation of the matter. But then–whatever the truth of the Hayhoe matter–my speculative hypothesis just happens to distract from one of your hive’s group-think, solidarity-test, hyped propaganda campaigns–and a good, lefty like you, Josh, dare not be seen having any critical, open-minded thoughts at such a time. Right, Josh? .
So, again, I say. Watch for more of this “DENIERS SEND DEATH THREATS/HATE MAIL TO CLIMATE SCIENTISTS” agit-prop. All well-timed and well-targed to promote the cause and demonize it’s “enemy-list.” And look for Josh to lead the pack-attack on this blog, uncritically pumping his pom-poms and at his hyped-up, (hump! hump!) leg-humping best.
And Anteros -
I hope that you realize that even though I may come off as condescending in my responses to you, I have a deep and abiding respect for anyone who has the ability to comprehend the game of cricket and the brute, raw endurance for pain that it takes to watch a match.
We don’t get given the possibility that global warming will suddenly accelerate to 0.5C/decade over the first half of the 21st century. But that’s a possibility too isn’t it?
It’s interesting to contemplate why all the disclaimers go one way. Fear?
“Now we have Dr. Curry stating that, in her opinion, we may not see much warming for the first half of the 21st century. The implications of this cannot be understated.”
I wish Dr. Curry had attached a likelihood to that statement. Already I feel what she described as a “possibility” is being pushed up towards 50% likelihood.
Richard
In the draft the Ipcc make assertions concerning abyssal warming. There are no citations to back up these assertions therefore there is no number and no reference and therefore the ipcc will not supply the supporting papers as there is no citation….a classic catch 22.
I have asked three times for supporting information to prove their vague assertion so any suggestions as to how ipcc can be persuaded to supply material? There are many similar examples.
Tonyb
Anteros, yes, Hadcrut4 will be out in time. Crutem4 is already out at J Geophys Res.
Conveniently, Crutem4 shows that Jones and his team have magically discovered the 21st century warming that previously hadn’t been seen.
Equally conveniently, the timing of the papers is such that any critique won’t be published in time for AR5.
yea yea yea initial conditions and all that. But I forgot how this all started and I am unsure of what point you are trying to make. Evidentially chaos isn’t preventing climate models from providing consistent climate sensitivity output so…?
“And you can’t really eyeball in a correlation of ENSO with the NODC. Apart from the fact that the NODC data – which integrates temperature to 700m – doesn’t seem consistent with CERES or with ocean data to 1500m and below.”
If the data’s all wrong and we can’t spot it visually (1998 should stick out like a sore thumb if it mattered) then the claim that the recent La Nina has failed to recharge OHC is without foundation.
Unless the claim isn’t about *global* OHC, in which case we sharply downgrade the significance of the claim.
cap’n
Now let’s look and see what we can find upthread, shall we?
Oh, here it is.
Louise and Joshua, They are both evidence of change with time.
So – evidence of change over time? Is that why RP Sr.wants the photos? Or does he want the photos for site classification? If it’s for site classification, does that have anything to do with photos of national parks?
With my limited reasoning abilities I just can’t figure that one out. Must be because I went to school.
John B.
“we need something more like engineering standards that are fully traceable and reproducible. Research quality simply doesn’t fully comply with engineering standards.”
I endorse upgrading “climate science” data and models to “engineering standards.” – Especially after email evidence that “The Team” can’t find or reproduce its models.
“Weather disasters are responsible for annual losses in the billions”
Wasteful and useless “renewables” are responsible for losses in the hundreds of billions – 250 billion worldwide in 2010 alone to be more precise. (and commitments to feed-in tarifs for the next 20 years, at least).
Good point, professor, and I would add, in addition to the time constraint issue, the possibility of a budgetary issue offering some sort of impediment.
