On Oct 16, 12:23*pm, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:35*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Oct 15, 8:35*pm, Lawrence13 wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:18*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:

In article 6346bf63-d3ed-483f-bc08-
, says....

Here you are Alan just click on the yearshttp://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Ok Lawrence I'll tell you want to hear. Good golly gosh, It /does/ look
a little chillier than in recent years but by gum, I really had to look
hard to see it.

There is nothing there to suggest that anything chilly is happening at
climatic timeframes though.

--
Alan LeHun

So was that a yes as you seem to be wriggling a tad. Actually Will
mentioned the colder Arctic conditions in *another thread, Actually
it's still running low *no signs yet of a rise.

Actually it very probably means sod-all, as you are just trying your
best to cherry pick a short dataset to try to tell the world that GW
has ended, as you always do, doesn't it?

What happened to Arctic Sea ice this year?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So is that a yes , that the temperatures are lower?

Just eyeballing them again today and we can now see it's the coldest
period covering the re freezing up until today since 1996 I make that
fifteen years.http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

You do know that we can now trust the satellite data far more, as they
switched to the aqua satellite wwhich is more constant in it's orbit-
if you catch my drift. *The near surface temperatures are sh lower
than last year and sghaping up to be over half a degree colder! *Now
that is interesting.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...amsutemps+001- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Temperatures in a location go up and down, just like ice cover, just
like daily global temperatures. You think they mean something and you
always cherry-pick when they fall. It's utterly stupid of you to do
it, as they always recover.

Geddit?