That’s 0.6 degrees C / 100 years for the raw data. The adjusted trend is 0.85.
Which becomes Jo Nova's headline of "Australian warming trend adjusted UP by 40%". Here's the graph Ken has produced to show his results:
Now EoR is not a climate scientist, and he finds these number things hard to get his head around, but surely one set of data shows an increasing trend, while the other set of data shows a slightly less increasing trend? Which would indicate, no matter how you twist the data, that climate is warming? Strangely, none of these fiercely independent investigators seems to mention that fact. Indeed, they seem to be conceptually blind to that particular elephant as they pursue their rigidly ideological paths.
This the same day that the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration in the US has released its 2009 State of the Climate report. They've even produced a cute graphic which shows how many predictors of global warming are confirmed by the data:
"When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world."
Download the full report (6.6 MB).
The IPCC conclusion (Alley et al. 2007) that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” does not rest solely upon LSAT [Land Surface Air Temperature] records. These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level, and increased atmospheric surface humidity (fig. 2.5). If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups. The observed changes in a broad range of indicators provide a self-consistent story of a warming world.
State of the Climate in 2009, p. S26