On Friday, 27 September 2013 17:00:36 UTC+1, Jim Cannon wrote:


So that was it , nothing.

Eloquently put sir.

On 2013-09-27 16:36:17 +0000, Lawrence13 said:

On Friday, 27 September 2013 17:00:36 UTC+1, Jim Cannon wrote:


So that was it , nothing.

Eloquently put sir.

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. Maybe it takes 15 years before Aunty will admit to anything
that is not in the "nightmare scenario" media handbook?

However, I also notice that immediately afterwards they move the
goalposts by trying to show another graph with only 10 year means, and
of course that still gives the impression they want - which is
'global warming is racing out of control towards armageddon'.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:50:13 +0100
yttiw wrote:

On 2013-09-27 16:36:17 +0000, Lawrence13 said:

On Friday, 27 September 2013 17:00:36 UTC+1, Jim Cannon wrote:


So that was it , nothing.

Eloquently put sir.

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. Maybe it takes 15 years before Aunty will admit to
anything that is not in the "nightmare scenario" media handbook?

Why should they admit something that hasn't happened? The temperature
rise has not 'shuddered to a halt since 1998.' I agree that it has
slowed but it has done this several times. Over the past 40 years,
there seem to be peaks in global temperature at roughly 8-yr intervals.


However, I also notice that immediately afterwards they move the
goalposts by trying to show another graph with only 10 year means,
and of course that still gives the impression they want - which is
'global warming is racing out of control towards armageddon'.


If, as you say, they showed 10-yr means, they did it because nobody but
a complete idiot would use annual values to show a long-term trend. This
is climate we're talking about, not weather.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
'In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is
bacteria.' - Benjamin Franklin

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:50:13 AM UTC+1, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-09-27 16:36:17 +0000, Lawrence13 said:



On Friday, 27 September 2013 17:00:36 UTC+1, Jim Cannon wrote:





So that was it , nothing.



Eloquently put sir.



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. Maybe it takes 15 years before Aunty will admit to anything

that is not in the "nightmare scenario" media handbook?



However, I also notice that immediately afterwards they move the

goalposts by trying to show another graph with only 10 year means, and

of course that still gives the impression they want - which is

'global warming is racing out of control towards armageddon'.

Come on witty. Look at the long-term graph of warming. GW will never be linear, there is far too much noise. AR5 certainly doesn't say what the BBC has "admitted to" and if there is a single published paper, listed in AR5, or not, that says what you've just stated about there being no warming for 15 years, I'd love to see it.

There's been a lot of denier comments around over the last few weeks and the denialosphere has gone into overdrive pre-AR5, denying the contents could possibly be true without even reading the assessment report. Apart from comments by idiots like the one who opened this thread, the denialosphere has gone quiet since the publication of AR5. The weight scientific evidence contained therein is so difficult to counter.

If you really believe what you wrote in your last sentence (leave the BBC out of it, no-one cares what hacks and reporters think, it's not important; AR5 and BEST are important), it may be time to read AR5 and then consider changing your mind about AGW.

GW is happening, it's highly likely to continue and the recent warming is highly likely to have been caused by humans.

That's the message from tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the subject (as opposed to a handful that express scepticism and that's what scientists and governments accept. True, isn't it?

PS I wonder if Larry has changed his mind about you being me?

PPS Do read AR5. It's necessary reading for anyone with an interest in the subject. The summary is out and I've read it; the full report will follow soon.

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

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.

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. *))

"yttiw" wrote in message
news:2013092820142187203-cuddles@britpostcom...
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.

It is not really true that there has been 15 years of flatlining. If you
look carefully at exmetmans's graph:
http://xmetman.files.wordpress.com/2...-july-2012.png
then you can see that if you ignore the El Nino in 1998, then tempeatures
continues to rise until ~ 2007.
It is only since then that the flat lining has happened. It seems that once
temperature reach the level of the 1998 El Nino they cannot rise higher. Of
course, perhaps if we have another major El Nino, global average temperature
will again jump by 0.3C.

Cheers, Alastair.

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.