"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 9:00 am, Natsman wrote:
On 28 Oct, 04:39, RWood wrote:





On Oct 28, 12:21 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

Not often I refer to a newspaper article, but this one highlights
the
lack of understanding of trends - or more likely the deliberate
misinterpretation of temperature data - by GW sceptics. Not AGW
sceptics, but people who feel that the world stopped warming in
1998.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...cians-reject-1...

It refers to the use of moving averages. These compare the average
of
1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year
moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any
previous years. It refers to eight of the warmest years in a
130-year
sequence occurring since 2000 (that will be 9 at the end of this
year.
It also refers to using 1997, or 1999, as a baseline instead of
1998.
Each shows no cooling and 1997 shows warming. Any year from the 40
before that shows warming as well, of course, but when did you ever
see a sceptic/denialist using any other year except 1998 when not
talking about GW?

It's something I've been arguing for years. It's just obfuscation to
use 1998, the year of the largest El Nino of modern times, to say
that
GW has somehow stopped. The global warming trend has never been
linear
and never will be and it is *far* more likely to continue upwards
than
it is to fall over the next century.

It's the same deliberate, or accidental (worse, because that shows
lack of understanding), mis-use of a "trend" to try to prove a
point,
as saying that Arctic ice cover is now in long-term recovery after
an
"amazing" (NSIDC) record low of 2007, which took the whole Arctic
scientific community by surprise. It's almost forgotten now, but
that's exactly what happened in 1998 - scientists were staggered by
the warmth of that year and it took 7 years for the warmth to be
equalled - in an year with an El Nino that was nothing like as
strong
as 1998.

The global warmth of 1998 is easily explained by that El Nino and is
the biggest cherrypick of all for the sceptics/denialists. It has
been
scandalously misused for years by them and will very likely be soon
eclipsed and consigned to history - as have all the other peaks and
troughs in the warming sequence.

AP are grooming as many as possible in preparation for Copenhagen-its
that
simple really. Just like that grotesque advert at the moment which
shows a
dad reading a fairy story to his young daughter in an attempt to
frighten
the life out of her. How low will these zealots go?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Lawrence, why don't you quit before you fall even further behind? You
are just making yourself look ever siller.

You could come and put in your 2p worth on this forum - but none of
the "sceptics" I have challenged has yet taken it up - they know
they'd be put to the sword.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I'm a confirmed sceptic because I've seen nothing anywhere which
would convince me that AGW is annything other than a manufactured,
scaremongering stunt by those who should know better.
CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just saying that you don't believe it doesn't actually make it true.

Look, there has not been cooling since 1998, or 2005 and there has, in
fact, been a continued warming trend throughout the last 100(ish)
years. 5, or 10 year moving averages show that very clearly.

The GW trend has never been linear; you and everyone else must expect
variations around the trend line, up and down. Any short-lived down
trend should not be an excuse for denying the world is continuing to
warm, but that is exactly what sceptics/denialists do every time they
post. They ignore the facts and concentrate on what they believe. Look
at the facts............

Presently, there is a developing El Nino, but there is a PDO that is
essentially neutral and an extended solar minimum. That should not be
producing anywhere near record-breaking global temperatures, but
temperatures have been very close to the warmest on record for the
last 2 months (NOAA). There has to be a reason for that.

Throughout the last La Nina, there was a solar minimum and a negative
PDO. All three of the sceptics main drivers of global temperature
were negative and should have produced much lower global temperatures,
yet the monthly and annual temps stayed within the top 10 warmest on
record throughout (NOAA).

In December, 9 of the last 10 years have occurred since the super El
Nino year of 1998. by that time, all the 20 warmest years in a 130-
year record will have occurred in the last 24 years (Hadley).

With that evidence of global warming, from global temperatures, any
sceptic must be asking themselves how on earth are global temperatures
are so high and thus why do i believe what I do? The only way to judge
global warming is not from public opinion, but from facts and data. On
that score, sceptics stand a very small chance of seeing their hopes
of a cooler future realised. The only remaining way to counter those
facts is to either question the validity of the temperature
measurements, or to call in the great western GW political conspiracy.
The first of those has been analysed to death and has not been found
wanting by the vast majority of climate scientists. The second of
those just makes the proponents look foolish.

Talk about GW temperature facts; why it is so warm presently and why
the temperatures over the last 2 years have not behaved in the way the
sceptical theorists expected them to.


Dawlish you could try sticking to the point I was making instead of going
off on some sort of mental diatribe walkabout. Woodsy says all deniers
(Please Gore they mean not to take your name in vain-forgive them) are
liars and my point was most of the lies seem to come from the AGW
bandwagoners

On Oct 28, 7:24*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Oct 28, 9:00 am, Natsman wrote:





On 28 Oct, 04:39, RWood wrote:

On Oct 28, 12:21 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

Not often I refer to a newspaper article, but this one highlights
the
lack of understanding of trends - or more likely the deliberate
misinterpretation of temperature data - by GW sceptics. Not AGW
sceptics, but people who feel that the world stopped warming in
1998.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...cians-reject-1...

It refers to the use of moving averages. These compare the average
of
1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year
moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any
previous years. It refers to eight of the warmest years in a
130-year
sequence occurring since 2000 (that will be 9 at the end of this
year.
It also refers to using 1997, or 1999, as a baseline instead of
1998.
Each shows no cooling and 1997 shows warming. Any year from the 40
before that shows warming as well, of course, but when did you ever
see a sceptic/denialist using any other year except 1998 when not
talking about GW?

It's something I've been arguing for years. It's just obfuscation to
use 1998, the year of the largest El Nino of modern times, to say
that
GW has somehow stopped. The global warming trend has never been
linear
and never will be and it is *far* more likely to continue upwards
than
it is to fall over the next century.

It's the same deliberate, or accidental (worse, because that shows
lack of understanding), mis-use of a "trend" to try to prove a
point,
as saying that Arctic ice cover is now in long-term recovery after
an
"amazing" (NSIDC) record low of 2007, which took the whole Arctic
scientific community by surprise. It's almost forgotten now, but
that's exactly what happened in 1998 - scientists were staggered by
the warmth of that year and it took 7 years for the warmth to be
equalled - in an year with an El Nino that was nothing like as
strong
as 1998.

The global warmth of 1998 is easily explained by that El Nino and is
the biggest cherrypick of all for the sceptics/denialists. It has
been
scandalously misused for years by them and will very likely be soon
eclipsed and consigned to history - as have all the other peaks and
troughs in the warming sequence.

AP are grooming as many as possible in preparation for Copenhagen-its
that
simple really. Just like that grotesque advert at the moment which
shows a
dad reading a fairy story to his young daughter in an attempt to
frighten
the life out of her. How low will these zealots go?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Lawrence, why don't you quit before you fall even further behind? You
are just making yourself look ever siller.

You could come and put in your 2p worth on this forum - but none of
the "sceptics" I have challenged has yet taken it up - they know
they'd be put to the sword.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I'm a confirmed sceptic because I've seen nothing anywhere which
would convince me that AGW is annything other than a manufactured,
scaremongering stunt by those who should know better.
CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just saying that you don't believe it doesn't actually make it true.

Look, there has not been cooling since 1998, or 2005 and there has, in
fact, been a continued warming trend throughout the last 100(ish)
years. 5, or 10 year moving averages show that very clearly.

The GW trend has never been linear; you and everyone else must expect
variations around the trend line, up and down. Any short-lived down
trend should not be an excuse for denying the world is continuing to
warm, but that is exactly what sceptics/denialists do every time they
post. They ignore the facts and concentrate on what they believe. Look
at the facts............

Presently, there is a developing El Nino, but there is a PDO that is
essentially neutral and an extended solar minimum. That should not be
producing anywhere near record-breaking global temperatures, but
temperatures have been very close to the warmest on record for the
last 2 months (NOAA). There has to be a reason for that.

Throughout the last La Nina, there was a solar minimum and a negative
PDO. All three of the sceptics main drivers of global temperature
were negative and should have produced much lower global temperatures,
yet the monthly and annual temps stayed within the top 10 warmest on
record throughout (NOAA).

In December, 9 of the last 10 years have occurred since the super El
Nino year of 1998. *by that time, all the 20 warmest *years in a 130-
year record will have occurred in the last 24 years (Hadley).

With that evidence of global warming, from global temperatures, any
sceptic must be asking themselves how on earth are global temperatures
are so high and thus why do i believe what I do? The only way to judge
global warming is not from public opinion, but from facts and data. On
that score, sceptics stand a very small chance of seeing their hopes
of a cooler future realised. The only remaining way to counter those
facts is to either question the validity of the temperature
measurements, or to call in the great western GW political conspiracy.
The first of those has been analysed to death and has not been found
wanting by the vast majority of climate scientists. The second of
those just makes the proponents look foolish.

Talk about *GW temperature facts; why it is so warm presently and why
the temperatures over the last 2 years have not behaved in the way the
sceptical theorists expected them to.

Dawlish you could try sticking to the point I was making instead of going
off on some sort of mental diatribe walkabout. Woodsy says all deniers
(Please *Gore they mean not to take your name in vain-forgive them) are
liars and my point was most of the lies seem to come from the AGW
bandwagoners- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why should anyone stick to any points you make, when you gatecrash a
thread which has nothing to do with what you wish to talk about. I'm
not sure at all you understand where you are any more. I'll re-post
the thread title for you to help.

98 - the only lifebelt for GW sceptics; but is it? Not "What Woodsy
said"............ Go and talk about it somewhere else.