"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Lawrence13 wrote:
On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:


Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.

Don't put words in my mouth. There is no global cooling! Temperatures may
have steadied but that could be only a forerunner to a sharp rise.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't take too much notice of all this but I find the semantics
interesting. Rather than rate of change, if the absolute temperature of
one year is less than the previous year then it's cooled slightly and if
the absolute value has risen from the previous year it has warmed. I'm not
say this means anything in the important matter of long term trends but
the wording would be factual I guess?

Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record
because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley record.
The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have enough data
from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming is happening.

There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and
coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science.

Lawrence's jibe is typical.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:25:32 +0100
"Alastair McDonald" wrote:

Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record
because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley
record. The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have
enough data from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming
is happening.

I'm surprised by some of the blank areas on the chart he
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/ I checked a month or so back that
there are stations in those areas that are currently reporting which
were also reporting sixty years ago. I can only assume that there
hasn't been a continuous record but there are techniques for solving
that problem so why haven't they been used?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
Free office softwa http://www.libreoffice.org/
Carlos Seixas, Sonata nº 1 - best version of this I've found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXox7vonfEg

On 2013-05-20 23:05:57 +0000, Lawrence13 said:

On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
----- Original Message -----




Year Anom 11 year ave.

1984 -0.051

1985 -0.095

1986 0.114

1987 0.213

1988 0.409

1989 0.323

1990 0.607

1991 0.467

1992 0.086

1993 0.177

1994 0.404 0.241

1995 0.757 0.315

1996 0.227 0.344

1997 0.596 0.388

1998 0.890 0.449

1999 0.701 0.476

2000 0.650 0.506

2001 0.853 0.528

2002 0.906 0.568

2003 0.898 0.642

2004 0.799 0.698

2005 1.019 0.754

2006 0.987 0.775

2007 1.146 0.859

2008 0.857 0.882

2009 0.800 0.874

2010 1.084 0.909

2011 0.876 0.930

2012 0.853 0.930



The scientists have been using a five year trend and that does seem

to have paused recently. That apparent slowing will most likely be

ended by another major El Nino, similarto the one which caused the

1998 large anomaly. Therefore, IMHO, the Scientists are wrong to

argue that there will be a slowdon in the next few years. More likely

we will have a suden warming caused by another large El Nino,

which happen on average every 20 years. Someone ought to tell the

scientists that the climate is a non-linear dynamical system and like

the financial system, another non-linear dynamical system, past

performance is no guide to performance in the future.



In other words, it may be bleeding obvious that the warming is

slowing but it does not mean it will continue.
Cheers, Alastair.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.

There is little evidence of cooling "setting in" (whatever that really
means) from those figures.

You could have argued that the trend was for noticeable cooling in both
2000 and 2004, after a couple of years of falling temperature anomaly
figures, but both of those were followed by an increase to a figure not
seen in anyones lifetime, so not quite cooling as most people
understand it.

The trend over the last 10 years has been to hover around the +0.9
figure, but even that is 0.5 higher than was the case only 25 years ago.

You have to have a very strange definition of the word cooling, in
order to find the evidence from those figures.

Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Lawrence13 wrote:
On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.

Don't put words in my mouth. There is no global cooling! Temperatures may
have steadied but that could be only a forerunner to a sharp rise.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't take too much notice of all this but I find the semantics
interesting. Rather than rate of change, if the absolute temperature of
one year is less than the previous year then it's cooled slightly and if
the absolute value has risen from the previous year it has warmed. I'm not
say this means anything in the important matter of long term trends but
the wording would be factual I guess?

Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record
because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley record.
The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have enough data
from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming is happening.

There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and
coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science.

Lawrence's jibe is typical.

Cheers, Alastair.




--------------------------------
You may have missed my point slightly. I think I am saying that if no
year in the Hadley record is warmer than 1998 then in plain English, for
that measurement, it is cooler. This does not mean other areas are
cooling or that GW is reversed but it does mean that!
Dave

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:25:32 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message

...

Lawrence13 wrote:

On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:





Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.



Don't put words in my mouth. There is no global cooling! Temperatures may

have steadied but that could be only a forerunner to a sharp rise.



-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't take too much notice of all this but I find the semantics

interesting. Rather than rate of change, if the absolute temperature of

one year is less than the previous year then it's cooled slightly and if

the absolute value has risen from the previous year it has warmed. I'm not

say this means anything in the important matter of long term trends but

the wording would be factual I guess?



Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record

because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley record.

The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have enough data

from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming is happening.



There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and

coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science.



Lawrence's jibe is typical.



Cheers, Alastair.

Oh Alastair, a huge undercover propaganda machine ?


Why are you so adamant that CO2 is the only game in town.

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:25:32 UTC+12, Alastair wrote:
There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science. Lawrence's jibe is typical. Cheers, Alastair.

Yes. "Cooling"? - ********.

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:46:56 PM UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Alastair McDonald wrote:

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message

...

Lawrence13 wrote:

On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:



Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.



Don't put words in my mouth. There is no global cooling! Temperatures may

have steadied but that could be only a forerunner to a sharp rise.



-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't take too much notice of all this but I find the semantics

interesting. Rather than rate of change, if the absolute temperature of

one year is less than the previous year then it's cooled slightly and if

the absolute value has risen from the previous year it has warmed. I'm not

say this means anything in the important matter of long term trends but

the wording would be factual I guess?



Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record

because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley record.

The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have enough data

from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming is happening.



There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and

coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science.



Lawrence's jibe is typical.



Cheers, Alastair.









--------------------------------

You may have missed my point slightly. I think I am saying that if no

year in the Hadley record is warmer than 1998 then in plain English, for

that measurement, it is cooler. This does not mean other areas are

cooling or that GW is reversed but it does mean that!

Dave

2005 and 2010 were warmer.

On 21/05/13 11:39, yttiw wrote:


You have to have a very strange definition of the word cooling, in order
to find the evidence from those figures.


Probably this "definition":

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

:-)

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Lawrence13 wrote:
On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.

Don't put words in my mouth. There is no global cooling! Temperatures
may
have steadied but that could be only a forerunner to a sharp rise.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't take too much notice of all this but I find the semantics
interesting. Rather than rate of change, if the absolute temperature of
one year is less than the previous year then it's cooled slightly and if
the absolute value has risen from the previous year it has warmed. I'm
not
say this means anything in the important matter of long term trends but
the wording would be factual I guess?

Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record
because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley
record.
The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have enough data
from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming is happening.

There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and
coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science.

Lawrence's jibe is typical.

Cheers, Alastair.




--------------------------------
You may have missed my point slightly. I think I am saying that if no year
in the Hadley record is warmer than 1998 then in plain English, for that
measurement, it is cooler. This does not mean other areas are cooling or
that GW is reversed but it does mean that!
Dave

Sorry, Dave.

I should have made it clearer that remark was meant for Lawrence. I posted
it after his comment before your post which I replied to separately. If I
had
preceded it by "Lawrence," that would have been clearer, but I was just
being
lazy making one post count for two :-(

With regard to your comments, I agree. The sceptics pick a truth (every year
since 1998 has been cooler) then draw invalid inferences from it. A good
example is Lawrence's more recent post: "OT or Possibly Not Is the Nenana
ice classic a proof of global warming?" There he states a truth: the
Nenana ice melt is very late; then goes on to conclude that John Daley was
a hero. That is the man who claimed to have disproved the evidence from the
records of hundreds of tide guages around the world by rowing out with a
ruler and watch to measure the distance a mark on a rock was above sea
level. It was reading his stuff, which appears convincing, that I first
spotted that technique. He begins each essay with a factual prelude and
concludes it with pseudo science, fallacies, and sly digs at the
establisment.

Another way of looking at the 1998 warming event is that it raised global
temperatures by the amount that the rise in CO2 would take 15 years to
achieve. How much higher will global temperatures rise when the next major
El Nino occurs?

Cheers, Alastair.

"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:25:32 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message

...

Lawrence13 wrote:

On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:25:28 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:





Ah! at last: even you accept cooling is setting in.



Don't put words in my mouth. There is no global cooling! Temperatures
may

have steadied but that could be only a forerunner to a sharp rise.



-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't take too much notice of all this but I find the semantics

interesting. Rather than rate of change, if the absolute temperature of

one year is less than the previous year then it's cooled slightly and
if

the absolute value has risen from the previous year it has warmed. I'm
not

say this means anything in the important matter of long term trends but

the wording would be factual I guess?



Yes. The sceptics choose 1998 as the start year and the Hadley record

because no other year since then has exceeded that one in the Hadley
record.

The Hadley record ignores the Arctic because it does not have enough data

from there, but the Arctic is where most of the warming is happening.



There is a huge undercover propoaganda machine financed by the US oil and

coal industries mixing facts and smears to discredit the science.



Lawrence's jibe is typical.



Cheers, Alastair.

Oh Alastair, a huge undercover propaganda machine ?


Why are you so adamant that CO2 is the only game in town.

Don't put words in my mouth! CO2 is not the only game in town. But it is
the only one we can do something about.