On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:10:49 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2014 19:20:52 UTC, RW wrote:

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 07:43:35 UTC+13, General wrote:



"Brian Lawrence" wrote in message ... "Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth's global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001." =============================== What was the purpose I wonder in making such a highly selective quote? The abstract actually ends up saying '...however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.' (The 'anomalous wind trends' in fact being the subject of the paper and the proposed explanation for the variability of the warming trend.) JGD







The purpose of course was the disinformational mission anti-AGW trolls the world over are engaged in.



Watch out they're in the trees.

No; they can't climb trees any more. Most of the "disinformational mission anti-AGW trolls" are old, mired in extreme right-wing views and sitting behind computers, thinking someone, somewhere will take them seriously if they type more words...............

On Monday, 10 February 2014 21:44:04 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:10:49 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Monday, 10 February 2014 19:20:52 UTC, RW wrote:



On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 07:43:35 UTC+13, General wrote:







"Brian Lawrence" wrote in message ... "Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth's global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001." =============================== What was the purpose I wonder in making such a highly selective quote? The abstract actually ends up saying '...however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.' (The 'anomalous wind trends' in fact being the subject of the paper and the proposed explanation for the variability of the warming trend.) JGD















The purpose of course was the disinformational mission anti-AGW trolls the world over are engaged in.







Watch out they're in the trees.



No; they can't climb trees any more. Most of the "disinformational mission anti-AGW trolls" are old, mired in extreme right-wing views and sitting behind computers, thinking someone, somewhere will take them seriously if they type more words...............



We've all seen your photograph Hyacinth, you are no oil.....oops I mean renewable energy painting. It's your husband I feel sorry for.

In article ,
says...
So odd then, that the last decade contained 9 of the 10 warmest years in a 163-year record, the two warmest years on record and was itself the warmest decade in the temperature record by a wide margin.

So odd, that.


Well to be fair, the statement does not exclude that.
It states only that warming has ceased, not that the climate has
reverted to a previous cooler state.




--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On 10/02/2014 19:34, Malcolm wrote:

In article , Brian Lawrence
writes

"Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the
Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or
less steady since 2001."

"http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.
html"

So what?

A scientist would know that the first sentence of an abstract of a
scientific paper , such as you have quoted above, conventionally sets
out the problem being investigated.

An honest scientist would quote the conclusion of the abstract which is:

"The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global
average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for
much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus
could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends
continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous
wind trends abate."

Readers can draw their own conclusions about you, your honesty, and
about the conclusions of the paper.

Indeed. I made a post which contained no words of my own and provided a
link to more info. I thought such actions were one of the main purposes
of a Newsgroup, even though as a long-time lurker I am aware of the
knee jerk reactions and rabid responses that often ensue.

C'est la vie.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:42:48 AM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 10/02/2014 19:34, Malcolm wrote:



In article , Brian Lawrence

writes



"Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the

Earth's global average surface air temperature has remained more or

less steady since 2001."



"http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.

html"



So what?



A scientist would know that the first sentence of an abstract of a

scientific paper , such as you have quoted above, conventionally sets

out the problem being investigated.



An honest scientist would quote the conclusion of the abstract which is:



"The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global

average surface air temperature of 0.1-0.2 °C, which can account for

much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus

could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends

continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous

wind trends abate."



Readers can draw their own conclusions about you, your honesty, and

about the conclusions of the paper.



Indeed. I made a post which contained no words of my own and provided a

link to more info. I thought such actions were one of the main purposes

of a Newsgroup, even though as a long-time lurker I am aware of the

knee jerk reactions and rabid responses that often ensue.



C'est la vie.



--



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

Yes, the rabid responses I and others, who propose and link to mainstream science to show that it is likely to be correct about climate change, receive from climate deniers are legendary in the newsgroup and utterly foul. I don't think you have been subject to anything of that ilk, ever, have you?

Dawlish wrote:


Yes, the rabid responses I and others, who propose and link to mainstream
science to show that it is likely to be correct about climate change,
receive from climate deniers are legendary in the newsgroup and utterly foul.
I don't think you have been subject to anything of that ilk, ever, have you?

How come I'm not surprised?

--
They can’t explain the lack of warming, but they are 95% sure that the
warming they aren’t seeing is caused by man.