>The World Meteorological Organization Press Release Number 869 “2000-2009, The Warmest Decade” is missing a few things. Link:
The text of the press release DOES NOT CONTAIN the words:
My post “Global Temperatures This Decade Will Be The Warmest On Record…” discussed the reasons for the record decadal temperatures. I posted it approximately one month ago, in advance of the misinformation sure to be spread by the press and alarmist blogs.
>Bob,I'm a newcomer to your site, ive been browsing WUWT for a couple months. Good site, but i'm still trying to grasp the Nino and Nina in layman's terms, and with few abbreviations.I did browse the press releases, and notice that a few of their releases, when they reference Nina amd Nino also do not mention those terms. Is the significance of their latest release that they are mentioning the correct cause of the temperature anamoly, or that they normally blame the typical doubtful causes?
>Cromagnum: Regarding El Nino and La Nina in layman's terms, have you read the NOAA FAQ pages?http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.htmlhttp://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/ And if you have any questions, please ask. Questions let me know what points I need to reinforce or rephrase. About the WMO press release, I can't say if there is or is not a significance to their failure to blame anthropgenic causes for the warmest decade on record. Truth be told, I normally do not pay attention to press releases about the weather, whioh is what this really is. The WMO's early announcement about decadal temperatures was timed for the Copenhagen meeting, so I decided to give it a quick look. That's when I noticed that they hadn't put in the plugs about manmade global warming.Thanks for stopping by. The vast majority of my posts deal with sea surface temperature data and the insights they hold. Now and then I'll shift to another dataset, like land surface and lower troposphere temperatures. Regards.