In other words, the period 1900-1933 warmed at 40 times as rapid rate as did the remainder of the century! Most important, the really rapid rate of warming took place decades prior to the large scale usage of fossil fuels. There is no way Carbon Dioxide can be causing warming, because there isn’t any significant warming, and the rate of warming essentially stopped after the early 1930’s. In the 66 years 1934-1999, the TOTAL amount of warming, as an average of all these 287 locations was approximately 0.05 degrees F. 268 of these locations were from the US, 265 of them from the NOAA file on temperature data. All as rate/century.
The environmentalists, the media, and “Vested Interest Al Gore” try to tell us the high latitudes are warming more rapidly than in the more temperature parts of our planet.

For the non-US locations in this tabulation referred to above, the below gives the details for some “Far North” locations.
Avg., Temperature Change Per Century
Nation/Location No. locations 1900-1999 1900-1933 1934-1999
Denmark 2 +0.84 +1.88 -0.41
Greenland 5 +0.43 +12.39 -3.74
Iceland 2 +0.72 +6.26 -1.75
Norway 6 +1.09 +3.78 0.00

Average of the 15 locations above +0.79 +7.14 -1.53

A bit dificult to make a case for Global Warming isn’t it?

Wayne Byerly Nixa, MO 417-725-6818

There is no objective need to graph “anomalies”. Its bad practice. What they ought to be graphing is temperature. People are always doing this. Making up imaginary constructs and throwing them into the works to make matters less clear to the laity than they ought to be. Actually the Doctor was probably committing some sort of heresy by bringing some attention to this shabby practice.

Specifically It allows them to pretend that we are now warmer than “normal”. But that would be a surprise to anyone on the ground and not subject to the warmers propaganda.

We ought to be pedantic about this sort of thing. Systematically cleansing the science of any misleading practices or terms. Like for example their ought not be such a term as “forcing” This is a highly processed and hypothetical concept and so its extremely misleading.

I couldn’t even figure out what these people were on about when I first heard this jive about anomalies and forcing. Forcing really means “hypothetical changes to a hypothetical equilibrium global temperature as expressed in an hypothetical increase/decrease in watts per square metre due to an hypothetical one-step change in something or other.”

So the very term “forcing” imbeds circular reasoning into the process. And the term “anomaly” is an unnecessary bit of idiocy meant to confuse people and make insiders feel special about themselves.

Considering the last year of this “normal” period occurred 18 years ago, it just seems a bit odd.