On Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:44:21 AM UTC+1, yttiw wrote:
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.

Then "graphs taking Krakatoa as a baseline" would be just as naïve and don't excuse you from starting with 1998. Please link to those graphs, if you wish to state that. Look at Mann's research. You will see the acceleration in warming clearly and that acceleration had now been confirmed in over 30 peer reviewed papers since. The criticism of Mann's work has been roundly and clearly rebutted.

On Sunday, 29 September 2013 09:58:30 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:44:21 AM UTC+1, yttiw wrote:

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.



Then "graphs taking Krakatoa as a baseline" would be just as naïve and don't excuse you from starting with 1998. Please link to those graphs, if you wish to state that. Look at Mann's research. You will see the acceleration in warming clearly and that acceleration had now been confirmed in over 30 peer reviewed papers since. The criticism of Mann's work has been roundly and clearly rebutted.

What three trees and a Neolithic lolly stick go to create a wet dream for AGW's
and create hockey schtick !!!!

About as representative of real life as a St Trinians films and that would make you garvey the George Cole character Flash Harry


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEyRVWpSYoo