Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

HadCrut data is notoriously incomplete on the Arctic, amongst other things because it excludes surface temperatures over the ocean (which is the bulk of the Arctic circle). See for example http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/
The confused argument hinges on one data set " the HadCRUT 3V " which is only one of several estimates, and it is the global temperature record that exhibits the least change over the last decade. Other temperature analyses suggest greater change (warming). Thus, one could argue that the HadCRUT 3V represents the lower estimate, if a warming could be defined for such a short interval.

Global Surface Temperature Estimates
...

A comparison with other temperature analyses, such as the NASA/GISS (pink in the figure on the left), reveals differences. We can also compare with model-generated data (re-analyses), keeping in mind that one must be very careful with these data since they are not appropriate for studying long-term climate change (they give a misrepresentation of trends " at least on a local scale). Nevertheless, information from independent data suggest an increase in global mean temperatures even over the last decade.

All scientific questions involve some degree of uncertainties (error bars), and these can only be reduced if one can prove that they are influenced by an external factor (’contamination’) or if some of the data are not representative for the study. Hence, if some of the data are incorrect, then it’s fair to exclude these to reduce the error bars. But this requires solid and convincing evidence of misrepresentation, and one cannot just pick the low values and claim that these describe the upper limit without proving that all the data with higher values are wrong. In other words, arguing that a lower limit is the upper bound is utter nonsense (even some who claim they are ’statisticians’ have made this mistake!).
...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
331
Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks is an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia whose research has focused flood and drought risk and seasonal climate prediction. A March 17, 2007 article in The Australian newspaper explained Franks' climate views. Franks "is increasingly uneasy about the dangerous path the debate is taking, where alternative views are discouraged and reputations attacked and discredited. Franks says our understanding of the physics of climate is still so limited, we cannot explain natural variability or predict when droughts will break, or the when and why clouds form, which makes him wary of mainstream claims projecting temperature changes over the next century. He argues that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere account for only about 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the overall warming effect, meaning even major increases in gases lead to only slight shifts in temperature: between 0.5C and 1C. He is less certain than other dissenting scientists that variation in solar activity is the cause, but doubts that greenhouse gases are the main driver of temperature changes," the article stated. "It's clear that we don't understand enough of the physics of climate to understand natural variability but I don't expect climate change from CO2 to be particularly significant at any point in the future," Franks said. The article continued, "Franks points to new modeling which has measured changes in the Earth's albedo, or reflectance, driven mainly by cloud formation. The paper by a team of geophysicists reported an unexplained decline in cloud cover until 1998, which caused the Earth to absorb more heat from the atmosphere. This resulted in increases in incoming solar radiation more than 10 times bigger than the same effect attributed to greenhouse gases. Franks says the current IPCC models assume albedo is constant but such research should be added to the body of knowledge, not excluded or rejected. ‘It's reached the point that anyone who offers an open mind publicly is basically criticized and put down,' he says." (LINK) Franks also wrote a June 2007 paper titled "Multi-decadal Climate Variability: Flood and Drought - New South Wales" in which he concluded that "strong evidence of multi-decadal climate variability" has dominated the climate. "Climate has never been static!" Franks wrote. "Current drought cannot be directly linked to ‘climate change'" and "El Niño/La Niña variability [is] due to natural processes," Franks wrote. (LINK)

I believe it was Adanac who claimed several pages back that Arctic sea ice was increasing again, which it shouldn't if global warming is real. Turns out, he's wrong.

ican, I hate to tell you this, but NO ONE is arguing that the upper limit of observations is the lower bound. That was not what the researchers or RealClimate said or even suggested. It is a figment of your imagination. your usual kind of straw man. What they WERE IN FACT saying was, that other observations, probably more reliable under the circumstances of observation and analysis, were consistently higher than HadCrut (and that all three, in fact, showed the same kind of upward trend), and that the denialists (like yourself), who insisted on using only HadCrut data were scientifically unsound in doing so. They did not claim the highest data was the lower bound of the reality--that would be scientifcally ludicrous and as far as I can see, you're probably the only person who claims to be able to read who would think that's what they said.

yep, Anadac, it wasn't you, but okie who was wrong (about this, at least).

almost everything, always. but in this particular case, that total ice in the arctic was increasing.

sorry, that was overly snarky, i apologize, I was unable to resist the straight line, and came back too late to edit it.