Comment: Why?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: the point is this... (see in situ)


if you want to talk long term trends, you need to start talking in numbers of centuries... not years.

Certainly not years, but what makes you think that decades aren't sufficient to see a trend?

The point is about whether there's a trend or not. Whether it's man-made is another issue. But even just the 33 years of satellite data would seem to be enough to talk about the current trend. If not why not?

The variance is too great to say anything about any particular year or even decade.

Do you mean the variance within each year? Because that's not an obstacle to seeing an overall trend.