OK, an oddly timed post with potentially the coldest weather that the
UK has experienced in years about to arrive on our doorstep, but in
global terms, whatever happens in the UK, or Western Europe, over a
short period of time, is pretty irrelevant.

Instead, if you are reading this and you believe that GW is a result
of natural cycles, or natural influences, or if you believe that GW
has stopped; why, globally, isn't it presently colder than it is?

Consider these three major accepted natural influences on climate.

1. We are in an extended solar minimum and cycle 24 is still not
really under way. Solar activity has been very low since before the
end of cycle 23 in early 2008. "Sunspots are at a 50-year low and we
are experiencing a deep solar minimum" David Hathaway, NASA. It is
also the "dimmest sun on record" (David Pesnell, NASA). Effectively,
the sun's output is reduced.

2. We are in a negative phase of the PDO. There has actually been 3
consecutive weakly positive months, but researchers put us in a
negative phase, which started in 2007. Research from Steven Hare,
Shoshiro Minobe and the JISAO shows that a negative phase of the PDO
is linked to colder gobal conditions. The period 1980-2007 was a
positive (warmer) phase and many sceptics link this to the period of
warming global temperatures.

Each of these first two global effects would be expected to influence
temperatures negatively. Accepted, there would be a time lag before
their effects would be fully felt, but each has now been operative for
2 years and thus would be expected to be influencing global
temperatures downwards by now.

3. Thirdly, we are experiencing an El Nino, which would be expected to
increase global temperatures. However, this El Nino has only just
established itself, though El Nino conditions have been experienced
since the early boreal summer 2009. Neither is this El Nino anything
like as strong as the El Nino of 1998, which produced record global
temperatures.

Now; the last 6 months of global measurements from the NOAA have
produced months which are 4th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 6th in their
respective 130 year sequences, i.e. the world is just about as warm as
it has ever been in any 6 month period since 1880.

So: with these three major natural cycles in the state they are, my
question is; why isn't it colder, globally, than it actually is?

On 2009-12-09, Dawlish wrote:
OK, an oddly timed post with potentially the coldest weather that the
UK has experienced in years about to arrive on our doorstep, but in
global terms, whatever happens in the UK, or Western Europe, over a
short period of time, is pretty irrelevant.

Instead, if you are reading this and you believe that GW is a result
of natural cycles, or natural influences, or if you believe that GW
has stopped; why, globally, isn't it presently colder than it is?

Because someone is holding their thumb on the bulb of the thermometer?

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

2 things to comment on Peter:
1) Timelines on graph not even. Making recent warming look a shallow upward
line, with no ups and downs in recent history which we all know there has
been.
2) It is also not painting whole picture, natural warming/cooling in past
has been due to either natural increase/decrease in solar output, changes in
natural green house gases etc this warming has been measured to increase
with increases in industrial CO2 which has a easily identified isotope. We
are also in a cooling phase of solar output which is opposing the man made
warming which came after a warming phase during 80's and 90's. However we
are not seeing significant falls in temperature as we saw warming in warming
in warming phase of sun which means there must be something else. Just a
coincidence that industrial CO2 (CO2 is a lab proven greenhouse gas) has
been increasing ?

I let you make your own mind up.

From reading comments here no matter what evidence says people seem to have
fallen into their own camp on the issue and will not have their minds
changed either way. To make things worse is the abuse which people throw at
each other. I firmly believe AGW is happening but I do have friends who I
generally believe to be intelligent but although I do get frustrated with
their lack of wanting to believe what I see as overwhelming evidence, I
would never insult them or give the abuse I see posted by some on the
newsgroup, from both sides of the argument.

Stan

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
enexpress.de...
Dawlish wrote:

OK, an oddly timed post with potentially the coldest weather that the
UK has experienced in years about to arrive on our doorstep, but in
global terms, whatever happens in the UK, or Western Europe, over a
short period of time, is pretty irrelevant.

Instead, if you are reading this and you believe that GW is a result
of natural cycles, or natural influences, or if you believe that GW
has stopped; why, globally, isn't it presently colder than it is?

Consider these three major accepted natural influences on climate.

1. We are in an extended solar minimum and cycle 24 is still not
really under way. Solar activity has been very low since before the
end of cycle 23 in early 2008. "Sunspots are at a 50-year low and we
are experiencing a deep solar minimum" David Hathaway, NASA. It is
also the "dimmest sun on record" (David Pesnell, NASA). Effectively,
the sun's output is reduced.

2. We are in a negative phase of the PDO. There has actually been 3
consecutive weakly positive months, but researchers put us in a
negative phase, which started in 2007. Research from Steven Hare,
Shoshiro Minobe and the JISAO shows that a negative phase of the PDO
is linked to colder gobal conditions. The period 1980-2007 was a
positive (warmer) phase and many sceptics link this to the period of
warming global temperatures.

Each of these first two global effects would be expected to influence
temperatures negatively. Accepted, there would be a time lag before
their effects would be fully felt, but each has now been operative for
2 years and thus would be expected to be influencing global
temperatures downwards by now.

3. Thirdly, we are experiencing an El Nino, which would be expected to
increase global temperatures. However, this El Nino has only just
established itself, though El Nino conditions have been experienced
since the early boreal summer 2009. Neither is this El Nino anything
like as strong as the El Nino of 1998, which produced record global
temperatures.

Now; the last 6 months of global measurements from the NOAA have
produced months which are 4th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 6th in their
respective 130 year sequences, i.e. the world is just about as warm as
it has ever been in any 6 month period since 1880.

So: with these three major natural cycles in the state they are, my
question is; why isn't it colder, globally, than it actually is?

The solution is really simple, if you take 5 minutes to think it over.

3 hints:

a)
6 months are weather, not climate.

b)
don't think you can switch off the stored energy of 100 years doubled
solar
activity by next morning before breakfast.

c)
I have to fail you what relates to GW. There is no GW. GW exist simply
within
a well choosen period of time, that shows a NATURAL up.
However much or less measured data shows... the data is selective
perception,
only valid within the last 130 years of natural incline.

But this "up" has been seen a lot of times before this selected period.
Just like "downs", that were intentionally kept secretive.
Why does nobody talk about the "downs"?

The overall trend of climate is clearly cooling.

http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png

See something supernatural here? I don't.

Meanwhile this (green) slope has plateaued and will change to "down" soon
again, like it often happened in the past (it's a too small period to show
in
this diagram, would be only 1-2 pixels).

Again for carve into AGWs forehead:

There is NO SIGN of a global warming.
Claims of a global warming have been made upon a selective time period.
Measured temperature changes within this period are irrelevant, all the
more
changes of a tenth or less degree.
Overall trend since beginning holocene is clearly DECLINING.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:02:37 -0000, "Stan"
wrote:

2 things to comment on Peter:
1) Timelines on graph not even. Making recent warming look a shallow upward
line, with no ups and downs in recent history which we all know there has
been.

http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png

Stan, that graph has a 12,000 year full scale, on
which there is not enough resolution to show individual
year or even 5 year running averages.

I assume you meant 'steep' upward line, the
data may only go up to year 2000 AD.

But if the calendar years were used instead
of 'years before present' the MWP and LIA and other
major temperature events are clearly shown, even
though the changes are only a couple of degrees.

The big feature, though not a large variation
in temperature, is the lack of cool years from 6,000
years to about 4,500 years before present, the plot
does not go below the zero line.
That seems to be about when civilization made
big changes, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome saw
big changes and China also seems to have enjoyed
an easier life which allowed time and comfort to
begin study and writing.

Not having cool years must have been nice,
but even in the last century some areas had brutal
cold years, the entire midwest saw horrible cold
years in the 1960s, the winter of 1962-1963 on
the shores of Lake Erie were the worse I ever saw,
a real ice age, no thawing at all from the first week
in December to the first week in May.

The fact that the steep upward line stopped
going upward in 1999 and has been almost level
since is an indication of a disturbance in the data
record, rather than an actual leveling off in climate
change.

But weather can change at any time, oddly
enough, it was 58 F here at 6 AM yesterday, and
26 F by supper time, the reverse of a normal day.

Events like this show how averaging can be
very deceiving, the annual global average is
rather silly, it attempts to be a proxy for energy
content, but is not.

2) It is also not painting whole picture, natural warming/cooling in past
has been due to either natural increase/decrease in solar output, changes in
natural green house gases etc

I think you are making a gross assumption
about 'natural greenhouse gases', there is not
a clear indication that atmospheric gases cause
a definite relation to temperature, it never gets
really hot when water vapor is high.

this warming has been measured to increase
with increases in industrial CO2 which has a easily identified isotope.

But atmospheric CO2 concentrations have
been going up every year, yet there has been
no increase in temperature above average 1998
levels. That is eleven years of CO2 increases
with no increase in temperature.

We
are also in a cooling phase of solar output which is opposing the man made
warming

You are assuming man made warming again,
it is not a certainty, just a possibility in some minds,
I believe greenhouse gases could cause cooling
because they are the only thing that cools the
atmosphere.

which came after a warming phase during 80's and 90's.

The data seems to show warming, but those
are the years when so many changes took place,
the change from manual recording of temperature
and the change to digital sensors alone could
have caused a disruption in data continuity.

The big changes in the list of weather stations
used, even with only using anomalies, leaves a
question about the continuity of data.

However we
are not seeing significant falls in temperature as we saw warming in warming
in warming phase of sun which means there must be something else. Just a
coincidence that industrial CO2 (CO2 is a lab proven greenhouse gas) has
been increasing ?


Or it means that using the recent weather
station list will never show a cooling, possibly
because most of them suffer from UHI, which
was pretty much non-existent before 1950.


I let you make your own mind up.


Unfortunately governments may increase
taxes on the opinion of a few.


From reading comments here no matter what evidence says people seem to have
fallen into their own camp on the issue and will not have their minds
changed either way.


That can easily be resolved by just waiting
to see if any upward slant of the line after 1998
appears. While not having a warmer year than
1998 is not conclusive, it suggests that there is
a problem with something(s) about the data
collection and manipulation.


To make things worse is the abuse which people throw at
each other.

It is the obscenities that I object to, and
the way the AGW nutcases constantly try to
discredit anybody who writes anything that
does not agree with AGW.

I firmly believe AGW is happening but I do have friends who I
generally believe to be intelligent


Aawww, they couldn't possibly be intelligent
if they don't believe in CO2 warming, could they?

:-)


but although I do get frustrated with
their lack of wanting to believe


Wanting to believe? Why would anybody
want to, or not want to, this isn't a question of
believing, the thermometers don't have that
ability.

what I see as overwhelming evidence, I
would never insult them or give the abuse I see posted by some on the
newsgroup, from both sides of the argument.

Stan

I appreciate that, and I am sure Peter does,
but even you have not mentioned anything
about atmospheric physics, AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

On Dec 10, 10:56*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 10:56Â*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.


GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?


That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.


Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.


GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?


Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that some
of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect. Can you
please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt you but I know
several people can read same article and all come up with different
conclusions due to selective reading, and may not realise they are doing it,
see my reply to article on greenhouse effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at bottom is
not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your point regarding
too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.


That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.


Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.




I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global climate
should be showing, even with global warming, global average temperature
heading towards a trough, although with global warming I would expect the
min of the trough to be slightly higher than last trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed by
rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures have only
slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are starting to speed
up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you disagree
on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is talking a load of
rubbish.

On Dec 10, 12:34*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:





On Dec 10, 10:56*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. *CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.

* * * * * GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.

* * * * *Why isn't it cooler? * *Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not me guy - so many scientists who simply don't believe your
writings...............of course they may all be wrong. *))

On Dec 10, 1:00*pm, "Stan" wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote in messagenewsfq1i5taabqfsl4nrlcst0bjh907pc1tpe@4ax .com...





On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. *CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.

* * * * *GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?

Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that some
of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect. Can you
please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt you but I know
several people can read same article and all come up with different
conclusions due to selective reading, and may not realise they are doing it,
see my reply to article on greenhouse effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at bottom is
not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your point regarding
too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.







That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.

* * * * Why isn't it cooler? * *Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.

I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global climate
should be showing, even with global warming, global average temperature
heading towards a trough, although with global warming I would expect the
min of the trough to be slightly higher than last trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed by
rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures have only
slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are starting to speed
up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you disagree
on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is talking a load of
rubbish.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree entirely with your remarks on keeping the tone reasonable,
Stan, even when so many scientists are tarred with a "nucase" brush
they simply don't deserve.

I don't even believe fully that CO2 is the main driver for GW; I just
think, on the basis of evidence, that it is likely to be - unlike guy,
who even denies the science and says that GHGs *cool* the atmosphere.
Well, I'll just point out again that the vast majority (and I make no
apology for using that term again, as it is true) of climate
scientists and physicists would regard that as twaddle. Not just me,
guy, but almost everyone else.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:00:04 -0000, "Stan"
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.


GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?


Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that some
of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect. Can you
please give me some links so I can read up?


There is nothing else that can cool the
atmosphere but greenhouse gases.

As I said, it never gets real hot when
the humidity is high, that is counter to GHG
caused warming.


(Not that I doubt you but I know
several people can read same article and all come up with different
conclusions due to selective reading, and may not realise they are doing it,
see my reply to article on greenhouse effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at bottom is
not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your point regarding
too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.


That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.


Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.




I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global climate
should be showing, even with global warming, global average temperature
heading towards a trough, although with global warming I would expect the
min of the trough to be slightly higher than last trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed by
rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures have only
slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are starting to speed
up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you disagree
on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is talking a load of
rubbish.

It isn't much fun usually because those certain
of CO2 caused warming do not discuss the particulars,
until they do, I don't know why they don't.

I am glad there isn't too much moisture
here now, it is not snowing hard, just a few
flurries, and 10 degrees below normal.