On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:54:20 +1100, "AGWCon" a g w con@a g w con
wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if
NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


[blah, blah]
[also newsgroups trimmed]

The guy who wrote that lied, and the Met Office says so.

From the official Met Office blog at:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/


'Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose
entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry
about�.

'This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of
published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office
Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global
temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is
entirely misleading.

'Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the
publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the
answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections
produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no
warming since 1997.'

(and includes an excerpt from their official response)

'[W]hat is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the
warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending
on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on
record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on
record in HadCRUT3.'

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On Feb 17, 11:14*am, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:54:20 +1100, "AGWCon" a g w con@a g w con
wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Forget-global-...

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if
NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

* *Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

[blah, *blah]
[also newsgroups trimmed]

The guy who wrote that lied, and the Met Office says so.

From the official Met Office blog at:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media...

'Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose
entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry
about”.

'This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of
published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office
Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global
temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is
entirely misleading.
....

It's the old "1998" hoodoo again. By using the max value of a series
you can be sure that
later years are going to be less. Just don't let anyone ask you -- do
that with the year
before or year after -- why the 1998 restriction.

For the Met series the hoodoo year is apparently 1997. Same diff as
before.

Here's the data for NASA's LOTI series:

1997 37
1998 57
1999 33
2000 34
2001 45
2002 57
2003 53
2004 49
2005 62
2006 54
2007 61
2008 43
2009 56
2010 65


The 2nd column is the deviation in .01C from the baseline value
(approx 14C).

If you start your "unrepresentative pairwise comparisons" with 1997
then you see
immediately that 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, etc all all greater. THere is
obviously warming going on.

If you start with 1999 then you see 200, 2001, 2002, etc are all
greater.

But if you start with 1998 -- the known max for the whole dataset --
then none of the following
years is greater. By slight of hand you have "proved" there is no
warming trend, despite the
"majority verdict" that there is if you get by choosing other years.

So peope that insist on limiting their "proofs" to eyeballing data
they have hand-selected
and that prominently feature a known oddball year are obviously
stoopid con artists (given
the con is so very transparent) or are even more stoopid despite
posting to sci.skeptic
to have fallen for a stoopid con artists.

Of course we know the same con will be pulled again and again to con
even more stoopid
people that hear the warning about the first con, but if the email
comes from Zaire rather
than Nigeria -- of course they will share their banking details
because it can't be the same con.

--
[Wattsupwithwatts:]
I know that I'll be criticized for my position on this, since I said
back in March that I would accept their findings whatever they were,
but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific
process.
-- Anothony Watts, denialist blogger, 24 Oct 2011

On 17/02/2012 00:14, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:54:20 +1100, "AGWCon"a g w con@a g w con
wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if
NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


[blah, blah]
[also newsgroups trimmed]

The guy who wrote that lied, and the Met Office says so.

From the official Met Office blog at:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/


'Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose
entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry
about�.

'This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of
published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office
Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global
temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is
entirely misleading.

'Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the
publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the
answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections
produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no
warming since 1997.'

(and includes an excerpt from their official response)

'[W]hat is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a
trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the
warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending
on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on
record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on
record in HadCRUT3.'


The Daily Mail is famously unreliable as a news source in the UK. You
can be almost sure that anything they report is at best misleading and
very often completely wrong. It reflects the prejudices of its owner.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Feb 17, 5:58*am, kym wrote:

But if you start with 1998 -- the known max for the whole dataset --
then none of the following
years is greater. By slight of hand you have "proved" there is no
warming trend, despite the
"majority verdict" *that there is if you get by choosing other years.

So peope that insist on limiting their "proofs" to eyeballing data
they have hand-selected
and that prominently feature a known oddball year are obviously
stoopid con artists (given
the con is so very transparent) or are even more *stoopid *despite
posting to sci.skeptic
to have fallen for a stoopid con artists.

Of all the data,graphs or graphics there is nothing like the most
familiar to all readers -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

There is a sinking feeling when you point out that the main point of
view out there is that the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days while
the massive daily temperature fluctuations keep in step with the
rotation of the Earth ,1461 times in 1461 days with February 29th
completing 4 orbital circuits of the Earth as the 1461st rotation that
began March 1st 2008.

I have previously indicate it appears like a collective type of autism
as had science said the world was flat it would be less shocking that
the imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days and yet that is what the
generation is prepared to believe whether highly involved in the
technical details or merely just curios.It is an unwanted phenomenon
and even though February 29th is less than two weeks away as another
day/night cycle and another rotation of the Earth,you wouldn't know
it in this present era.



Of course we know the same con will be pulled again and again to con
even more stoopid
people that hear the warning about the first con, but if the email
comes from Zaire rather
than Nigeria -- of course they will share their banking details
because it can't be the same con.

--
[Wattsupwithwatts:]
I know that I'll be criticized for my position on this, since I said
back in March that I would accept their findings whatever they were,
but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific
process.
-- Anothony Watts, denialist blogger, 24 Oct 2011