On 2013-09-28 20:34:53 +0000, Dawlish said:

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:14:21 PM UTC+1, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-09-28 12:30:00 +0000, Adam Lea said:



On 28/09/13 10:50, yttiw wrote:





I notice that the BBC have finally been forced to admit that the rapidly

rising global mean temperature curve has shuddered to a halt since 1998.





*sigh* Not this again.



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



The irony of linking to a site that does not fit the line to their own

curve properly is obviously lost on you.



You could try the official graph here -

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc.pdf



But presumably you are tired of this "nonsense" from the Hadley Centre as well?





I am not a denier by any means, but after being overly patronised when

the first few years after 1998 seemed to buck the previous 30 year

trend, I tended to take more than a passing interest in the subsequent

years.



Now, it would seem that even after 15 years of flatlining graphs, the

patronisers still rush to impose their self righteous views on me, as

if I had just crawled from under a stone.

Don't take it to heart, Have a read of AR5 and see why taking 1998, the
year of the strongest El Nino in recent times, as a baseline for any
judgement about GW is a very unscientific thing to do. *))


I am not taking it to heart. There is not much that I can do about it, though.

I already try and conserve energy wherever I can, and have cut my car
use quite dramatically over the past few years. I have looked into
solar panels for my roof, but the installer said that because of the
position of next doors' house, which casts a shadow over my roof after
about 2pm, there is not enough sunlight there to make it worthwhile. I
do not mind wind turbines, or barrages across estuaries, but it seems
that governments are influenced enough to kick these projects into the
long grass.

I can see that taking 1998 as a baseline is probably naive, but then a
lot of graphs take the years after Krakatoa as their starting point,
presumably because global temperatures were more depressed at that
time, and it makes for a more dramatic rise.