I am delighted that someone at Anthony Watts has reported on the data from the Telegraph report. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/m ... #more-4741
The Telegraph article puzzled me when i first read it and so I posted,as below, in the comments section of "The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008"
Perry Debell (14:53:16) :
As it’s still 2008, how about this prediction from the Telegraph 30th December.
“The average global temperature is expected to be more than 32.7F (0.4C) above the long term average, making next year warmer than this year and the hottest since 2005, researchers from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia said. The warmest year on record is 1998, which saw an average temperature 32.9F (0.52C) above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 57.2F (14C).
Professor Phil Jones, the director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, said: “The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away.
“What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 57.99F (14.44C), was 32.38F (0.21C) warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
Prof P. Jones is a desperate man these days, after all he has been quoted as saying that 32.38F is 0.21C. Now it’s more than possible that Duncan Gardham and Jon Swaine are rubbish reporters, but they updated their article at 5:56PM GMT. What does P. Jones mean? Anyone?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... eland.html
The article was updated again at 10:42PM GMT 30 Dec 2008, but I still ask how can 32.9F be the same as 0.52C? That's what is written. 32.9F (0.52C) It still does not make sense to me. Explanation anyone?