Yes, I agree, my phraseology was unfortunate. A 0.4 C rise in 30 years is not a spike. (It isn't based on a valley-to-peak maximum difference, either.)
I was thinking about those links you posted (BTW what do they have to do with "data quality?) trying to support global warming theory with anecdotes, when I saw this today,
What I posted is not anecdotal. Each of the articles is about an observation of a trend. A spring thaw a month early is an anecdote, as is one bitterly cold winter. A trend of spring thaws a week earlier over a century is a shift of significance BECAUSE it shows a change in one direction of a highly variable occurrence. The tropopause height is a clear indicator of the state of the GLOBAL climate -- it essentially synthesizes everything occurring above and below and reacts.
The reason that this is about data quality is that the natural trends are in the same direction as would be indicated by the data. This means that though it may be necessary to keep refining the error bars on the direct instrumental observations, the data and the trends provide mutual support. Everything "fits".
I was originally responding to this comment:
Before we do that we should first determine how much of the temperature rise is real or caused by: (list of instrumental problems)
In essence I was saying that most of the temperature rise has to be real, or otherwise we would not be seeing the significant shifts in natural indicators.
BTW, the correct term for this is "phenologic". A couple of years back there was a big paper about this. Let me look...
Got it. "Ecological responses to recent climate change", 2002. Google Scholar indicates it has been cited 853 times. That's impressive. What I'm still looking for is a free copy...
Here we go. It's a PDF.
Ecological responses to recent climate change
It's not a hard read. Take a look. When you're done, please answer the following question:
If there was no instrumental data at all, just the observations of the trends in the paper, what would be the logical conclusion regarding the direction of change for global climate?
Thanks.
I don't believe anyone can draw any conclusion from that study. I have less respect for ecologists than I do for climate scientists. At least climate scientists make an attempt to prove their theories using scientific methods. An ecosystem is complex and chaotic. There is no proof that warming is causing all the changes he talks about. They can advance a theory and rationalize it but there is no proof. Species change radically for dozens of reasons even when the temperature doesn't change.
Months ago there were people saying that polar bear populations were at risk from global warming. The ice was melting and the bears were drowning. Trouble was, most types of polar bears were increasing in number.
Living things have a lot more to worry about than a slight increase in temperature.