[Stephen Wilde]

Given the enthusiasm expressed on this forum I'll offer an occasional commentary on global weather trends because over time weather is an expression of climate albeit more chaotic.
Others can contribute or not as they think fit.

I'll start by pointing out that the northern winter just gone was colder than average in large areas of North America and China whilst Western and Central Europe was very mild.

The current southern winter is colder than average in South America, South Africa and Australia.

Greenland is currently showing temperatures of -30C already which is a bit earlier than average.

The Western European weather pattern this summer has shown the jet stream further south than usual which is more like the situation during the cooling period in the 1950's and 1960s. Western and Northern Europe has been cooler than in recent years.

Over a period of a couple of years it should become clear as to whether warming is continuing as anticipated or has reached it's peak.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Given the enthusiasm expressed on this forum I'll offer an occasional commentary on global weather trends because over time weather is an expression of climate albeit more chaotic.
Others can contribute or not as they think fit.

I'll start by pointing out that the northern winter just gone was colder than average in large areas of North America and China whilst Western and Central Europe was very mild.

The current southern winter is colder than average in South America, South Africa and Australia.

Greenland is currently showing temperatures of -30C already which is a bit earlier than average.

The Western European weather pattern this summer has shown the jet stream further south than usual which is more like the situation during the cooling period in the 1950's and 1960s. Western and Northern Europe has been cooler than in recent years.

Over a period of a couple of years it should become clear as to whether warming is continuing as anticipated or has reached it's peak.

where you been? I went nearly the whole winter without a winter coat when compared to when I was a child I would have froze to death from thanksgiving to april ! this last winter was only two weeks of snow only stuck around for a week after! maybe the reason I notice it more is I am in a center of a continent not really effected too much by ocean current.

[Stephen Wilde]

Corey,

Denver got close to a record long spell of snow cover and Alaskan ports were frozen up more than for many years past.

I'm just going to make occasional comments which others can check elsewhere for themselves. I'm not going to get into arguments over what did or did not happen. Over time the trends will indicate warming or cooling because nothing stays the same.

It will take longer for the global temperature record to reflect any changes that we see so observation of weather over time is the earliest indicator of what might be going on.

I'll probably update every month or so.

[Stephen Wilde]

European Sea Surface Temperatures !0 August in each of the years 2003 to 2007.


N. Baltic 20 19 17 19 17

W. coast of Sweden 16 15 13 15 13

Faeroes 14 13 11 12 11

Central Med. 26 24 23 23 23

N. Sea 17 17 15 17 15

Canary Isles 24 25 24 24 23

N.W. Spain 20 20 20 20 19

N.E. of Azores 21 20 22 22 20


Sea Surface Temperatures tend to reflect past weather rather than predicting future weather but the declining trend is apparent and over a 5 year period it is more of a climate phenomenon than simply a weather phenomenon.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

European Sea Surface Temperatures !0 August 2003 to 2007.


N. Baltic 20 19 17 19 17

W. coast of Sweden 16 15 13 15 13

Faeroes 14 13 11 12 11

Central Med. 26 24 23 23 23

N. Sea 17 17 15 17 15

Canary Isles 24 25 24 24 23

N.W. Spain 20 20 20 20 19

N.E. of Azores 21 20 22 22 20


Sea Surface Temperatures tend to reflect past weather rather than predicting future weather but the declining trend is apparent and over a 5 year period it is more of a climate phenomenon than simply a weather phenomenon.

So what are we seeing in this trend?

[Stephen Wilde]

Cooling.

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Cooling.

And?

Are we talking about increased mixing from cooler water below?

Lowered salinity from fresh water melting of glaciers and ice caps?

Changes in the oceanic currents? (Gulf Stream etc)

Increased cloud cover reducing global surface heating?

Should we all be buying skis and down clothing before prices escalate?

Or do you have some other interpretation?

[njp]

It might be helpful if you included the source for your data.

[Stephen Wilde]

Hi, njp

Welcome back.

The data is from The Weather Channel on weather .co.uk.

I've been printing out the charts 4 times a year since 2003. The results are as unexpected to me as they must be for others. Can fax them to you if you wish.


Nimby,

I've no idea what the cause is but usually it would be a result of a change in prevailing wind direction during the period concerned. Trends can reverse at any time so I don't intend to predict anything.

It is one of the reasons I entertain the possibility that since 1998 or so the weather patterns have shifted to a net pole to equator flow rather than the net equator to pole flow of the period of warming.

As stated I do not believe we know enough about climate change to be sure either way but the fact is that weather changes if continued over time are the first manifestations of climate changes.

The weather patterns are not supporting a warming trend at present but of course they can change at any time. My intention in this thread is to see whether current patterns do last long enough to work through into the global temperature record so as to stabilise or negate the recent warming trend.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

The data is from The Weather Channel on weather .co.uk.

I've been printing out the charts 4 times a year since 2003. The results are as unexpected to me as they must be for others. Can fax them to you if you wish.

Ok, so the data is not archived online. I confess I'm a little confused as to what, if anything, this is telling us. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that the charts to which you refer are of this form? So what do the figures you have given us represent? The sea surface temperature on a single day in August for each of those years at the selected locations?

[Stephen Wilde]

Yes, that's the one.

I've selected a scattering of points which are representative of the whole area involved.

All it tells us is that there has been cooling in the last 5 years. That may or may not be meaningful depending on what happens in the next few years. It is quite possible for there to be differential areas of warming and cooling in different areas whilst a background overall warming continues.

However persistence of cooling in the European area combined with similar areas of cooling elsewhere would suggest that we have passed the peak of recent warming trends.

From various other sources it is apparent that the jet stream has been further south in the northern hemisphere and further north in the southern hemisphere. You may have seen the reports of unusual cold in the current southern winter and anomalous snowfall in South Africa and South America together with record low temperatures in parts of Australia.

None of this is proof of anything unless it continues but it is worth watching because weather is the first sign of any climate shift.

I spotted the change to a warming trend in the 70's because I was running a daily temperature record and imposing it on the average annual temperature curve. The most obvious indicator with the benefit of hindsight was the development of longer and longer mid winter warm spells caused by predominant cyclonic south westerlies. In contrast northerlies and easterlies became less frequent than in the earlier cooling period. Over time a similar pattern extended into the other seasons with an enhanced southerly component throughout the year. I have noted a reversal of that scenario over recent years and await developments with interest given the current interest in matters which I have relevant direct experience of.

Climatologists tend to downplay the significance of weather due to it's chaotic nature but the fact is that a close observation of weather patterns does give subtle advance warnings of developing climate shifts.

It is because models are unable to predict such variations in trend that I know they are not sufficiently complete or accurate for predictions of any sort. They are good for extrapolation of existing trends but they cannot predict changes in trend. Rather like economic models or models of social or political situations in fact. The current global warming fears are based entirely on extrapolation into the indefinite future of trends recently observed. They cannot take account of future changes in trend because we do not know enough about what causes such changes. Furthermore they are not updated with information about weather patterns because such patterns are too chaotic. Changes in weather patterns are capable of being much earlier and therefore better indicators of ongoing changes than the models can be

So, the reason I am a sceptic is that I personally observed the change in weather patterns that led to the subsequent change of climate in the UK and around 2000 to date I personally have observed a reversal of that change. If the warming weather patterns were continuing now as they were before 2000 I would be much more concerned about MMGW but now I need to see whether the weather pattern change is significant before I can go with the believers.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I've selected a scattering of points which are representative of the whole area involved.

All it tells us is that there has been cooling in the last 5 years.

It seems to me that the spatial and temporal resolution of your samples is inadequate to reach that conclusion, especially given that the annual variations are rather large; one would not expect either a cooling or a warming signal of those magnitudes over that time scale, given the large thermal capacity of the oceans.

However persistence of cooling in the European area combined with similar areas of cooling elsewhere would suggest that we have passed the peak of recent warming trends.

The fact that you chose 2003 as your starting point rang a bell, because Lyman et al claimed to have detected a cooling trend in the upper ocean from that year, in a paper which was subsequently corrected when bias was detected in the ARGO floating profilers. One of our regular contributers amused me some months ago by triumphantly providing a link to the paper which by then included its own negation (presumably it didn't at the time the link was harvested from the blogosphere!). So the wider evidence indicates that the oceans are continuing to warm on a global scale, and indeed continuing sea-level rise due to thermal expansion adds further support to that case. AIUI, European seas are more subject to influences from regional weather patterns and circulations, so a signal either way would not be expected to be as visible there.

Climatologists tend to downplay the significance of weather due to it's chaotic nature but the fact is that a close observation of weather patterns does give subtle advance warnings of developing climate shifts.

It is because models are unable to predict such variations in trend that I know they are not sufficiently complete or accurate for predictions of any sort. They are good for extrapolation of existing trends but they cannot predict changes in trend.

They model (imperfectly) physical processes, and usually predict trends over rather long periods of time, where the global warming signal is expected to dominate. Hence the trend is only one way. Interesting, the Hadley centre's new Decadal Climate Prediction System predicts that internal climate variability will dampen global warming over the next two years, before it resumes its upward trend. They expect the global mean temperature in 2014 to have increased by 0.3C over its 2004 value.

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

European Sea Surface Temperatures !0 August in each of the years 2003 to 2007.


N. Baltic 20 19 17 19 17

W. coast of Sweden 16 15 13 15 13

Faeroes 14 13 11 12 11

Central Med. 26 24 23 23 23

N. Sea 17 17 15 17 15

Canary Isles 24 25 24 24 23

N.W. Spain 20 20 20 20 19

N.E. of Azores 21 20 22 22 20


Sea Surface Temperatures tend to reflect past weather rather than predicting future weather but the declining trend is apparent and over a 5 year period it is more of a climate phenomenon than simply a weather phenomenon.

Oh no it's MMGC (man made global cooling)
We need to build as many coal power stations as we can
We need to change all our central heating systems to sulphur rich coal
And get rid of all those energy saving bulbs.
And drive around in 4x4s


........ to stop it before we all freeze to death!

[Stephen Wilde]

As I said, we just need to keep an eye on it for a few years.

Interesting that the Hadley Centre seems to have included some 'internal climate variability' whatever that means. I wonder why it was not previously included.
Perhaps they are engaged on a damage limitation course having noticed the same weather pattern changes as I have.

Time will tell but we really do need to see the outcome of the recent changes before firming up on MMGW.

2003 was when I first found the charts (or rather it was Dec 2002) so the start point was not 'chosen' in any meaningful way.

European waters are indeed more responsive to weather changes than other sea areas and so are ideal for early observation of any changes.

Given that sensitivity there is nothing amiss with the large change observed in the N.E of the area shown.

On its own I would not have seen the change as particularly important. What makes it worthy of note is that it seems to parallel weather changes elsewhere as I have pointed out.

Time will tell and I have no axe to grind either way as long as my point is checked out before we announce unstoppable warming.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Interesting that the Hadley Centre seems to have included some 'internal climate variability' whatever that means. I wonder why it was not previously included.

The variability is inherent in the equations (to the extent that they accurately model nature), so it has always been there. But if you are making a prediction over a period of a century, the "wobbles" become much less significant than the long-term effects of the external forcings.

The new model is trying to make predictions over much shorter timescales, so the wobbles will be more apparent. And in order for the predictions to be meaningful, they have to initialise the model with much more detailed observational data.

From the previously referenced article in Nature:

Although most climate models are run with preset boundary conditions, such as the strengths of solar radiation and the level of greenhouse gas, the initial state of the atmosphere and ocean are left undefined, because setting them up with the right initial conditions is time-consuming and costly. "In theory, any climate model could be initialized in this way," says Smith. "It's just a very large piece of work.

[Stephen Wilde]

I agree with the fact that a model needs to be initialised but it has never before been so clearly admitted that they never had been properly initialised.

How can they have any adequate predictive value without accurate initialisation ?

Of course initialisation can be done but there is no guarantee of accurate initialisation because so little is known of the causative factors leading to the initial position or the proper weight to be attached to each of them.

I have a suspicion as to what has happened here.

1) The changes in weather patterns which I have observed have resulted in the flattening out of the warming curve as shown on the Hadley graph.

2) To explain the flattening introduce 'internal climate variability'.

3) Pretend that you know what that is and allocate numbers to it even though the cause or causes are unknown.

4) Ignore the possibility that too much weight has been given to the effect of CO2

5) Minimise the problem in the short term by speculating without any evidence that it will only hold back warming for 2 years.

6) Pray that in 2 years time your avoidance strategy proves correct as a result of the influence of other causes weakening so that warming resumes.

7) In the meantime see what can be done to fiddle with the temperature records as they come in.

8) Hope that the internal climate variability never proves to be so large that it will always swamp the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.


I await evidence one way or the other but my gut feeling is that the unidentified and unquantified inter-reaction of all the factors that can affect global temperature will in due course be shown to entirely swamp anything that results from an increase in the atmosphere of anthropogenic CO2.

I propose to assess the evidence as it arises and not be panicked by speculation from climatologists who cannot distinguish between wood and trees.

I have pointed out how the weather and therefore climate is already diverging from predictions.
Thanks to njp's expertise with internet sources I have confirmation that others have spotted the problem.

I will continue to update this thread and comment as the evidence unfolds.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I agree with the fact that a model needs to be initialised but it has never before been so clearly admitted that they never had been properly initialised.

How can they have any adequate predictive value without accurate initialisation ?

It depends what you are trying to achieve with the model. Weather models are hugely dependent on the accuracy of the initial conditions. With long range climate models it hardly matters; in crude terms, "it all averages out". The new Hadley model lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Over time, I suspect the different approaches will converge to some extent - clearly a really complete climate model could also be used to predict the weather, but it would be a hell of a computational beast.

Of course initialisation can be done but there is no guarantee of accurate initialisation because so little is known of the causative factors leading to the initial position or the proper weight to be attached to each of them.

That's just hand-waving. If you have modelled the physical processes accurately, then how you arrived at the initial conditions is irrelevant. You are taking a snapshot at that point in time and running the model from there to see what happens. Of course this is imperfect; the models still have fairly course spatial granularity (but much better than in the 1990s), initial conditions will have errors, and the physical processes are incompletely understood. But the models show considerable ability to hindcast, and they continue to evolve. They are extremely useful.

I have a suspicion as to what has happened here.

1) The changes in weather patterns which I have observed have resulted in the flattening out of the warming curve as shown on the Hadley graph.

2) To explain the flattening introduce 'internal climate variability'.

3) Pretend that you know what that is and allocate numbers to it even though the cause or causes are unknown.

4) Ignore the possibility that too much weight has been given to the effect of CO2

5) Minimise the problem in the short term by speculating without any evidence that it will only hold back warming for 2 years.

6) Pray that in 2 years time your avoidance strategy proves correct as a result of the influence of other causes weakening so that warming resumes.

7) In the meantime see what can be done to fiddle with the temperature records as they come in.

8) Hope that the internal climate variability never proves to be so large that it will always swamp the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And now you have descended into conspiracy theory land. You have no evidence for any of those assertions. You are basically accusing the Hadley centre researchers of lying.

I await evidence one way or the other but my gut feeling is that the unidentified and unquantified inter-reaction of all the factors that can affect global temperature will in due course be shown to entirely swamp anything that results from an increase in the atmosphere of anthropogenic CO2.

I propose to assess the evidence as it arises and not be panicked by speculation from climatologists who cannot distinguish between wood and trees.

I have pointed out how the weather and therefore climate is already diverging from predictions.

As I told MM, the gut is a poor organ with which to do your thinking. If you want me to believe that your data collection goes beyond mere stamp collecting, then you need to present a convincing statistical analysis of the numbers before insisting that you have spotted a cooling trend that other far more detailed analyses have missed.

[Stephen Wilde]

Apparently others haven't missed it. The Hadley Centre now accommodates a period of natural cooling offsetting MMGW for at least 2 years. It wasn't saying that a short time ago.

No one is lying. It is natural for a proud professional to do his or her best to interpret evidence in a way that supports both their professionalism and protects the source of funds. It is within the range of reasonableness until the evidence becomes clearer. My list is possibly what is going on until shown otherwise by the external evidence. I might have gone too far with item 7 but that should be adequately dealt with by the current pressure to re -validate the recording sites especially in the USA where a significant proportion now seem to be hopelessly compromised.

There is no 'hand waving'. There is currently no way of confirming that the physical processes have been modelled accurately enough for predictive purposes It's all experimental and adjustments are being made constantly as the real world diverges from the models. Unfortunately no one knows whether the adjustments are accurate. It's easy enough to get a model to match the real world more closely by adjusting the wrong variable and there is no way of knowing which variables are wrong. They probably all are.

As regards long term/ short term. The problem we have is more generally known as the 'butterfly effect'. Tiny changes in the short term lead to widely differing outcomes in the medium or long term.
The so called 'wobbles' develop unpredictably over time to swamp what you see as a long term trend. It is wrong to think we have nailed the long term future of our climate where there is plenty of remaining scope for it to be upset by the magnified consequences of a huge number of smaller variables.

I say we should wait and see and review our judgements frequently. You seem to think there is predictive certainty such as to justify disruption of all human civilisation. Your approach is untenable.

By all means express your concerns in websites about over population, pollution and resource depletion. In my view anthropogenic global warming is a dead duck with current global weather patterns. If it goes back to what we had from 1980 to 2000 I will review my position.

Enjoy the first Autumn storm of the year next week - in August. They were common in August pre 1980 but have been rare ever since.

And as regards the recent heavy rains in UK and elsewhere. Climate is drier when the planet is warming because the air can hold more water. When cooling is in progress more water has to be dumped. All the current weather signs are pointing only one way and I will be perfectly happy to acknowledge it if the situation changes.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Apparently others haven't missed it. The Hadley Centre now accommodates a period of natural cooling offsetting MMGW for at least 2 years. It wasn't saying that a short time ago.

No one is lying. It is natural for a proud professional to do his or her best to interpret evidence in a way that supports both their professionalism and protects the source of funds. It is withing the range of reasonableness until the evidence becomes clearer. My list is possibly what is going on until shown otherwise by the external evidence. I might have gone too far with item 7 but that should be adequately dealt with by the current pressure tp re -validate the recording sites especially in the USA where a significant proportion now seem to be hopelessly compromised.

There is no 'hand waving'. There is currently no way of confirming that the physical processes have been modelled accurately enough for predictive purposes It's all experimental and adjustments are being made constantly as the real world diverges from the models. Unfortunately no one knows whether the adjustments are accurate. It's easy enough to get a model to match the real world more closely by adjusting the wrong variable and there is no way of knowing which variables are wrong. They probably all are.

As regards long term/ short term. The problem we have is more generally known as the 'butterfly effect'. Tiny changes in the short term lead to widely differing outcomes in the medium or long term.
The so called 'wobbles' develop unpredictably over time to swamp what you see as a long term trend. It is wrong to think we have nailed the long term future of our climate where there is plenty of remaining scope for it to be upset by the magnified consequences of a huge number of smaller variables.

I say we should wait and see and review our judgements frequently. You seem to think there is predictive certainty such as to justify disruption of all human civilisation. Your approach is untenable.

By all means express your concerns in websites about over population, pollution and resource depletion. In my view anthropogenic global warming is a dead duck with current global weather patterns. If it goes back to what we had from 1980 to 2000 I will review my position.

Enjoy the first Autumn storm of the year next week - in August. They were common in August pre 1980 but have been rare ever since.

And as regards the recent heavy rains in UK and elsewhere. Climate is drier when the planet is warming because the air can hold more water. When cooling is in progress more water has to be dumped. All the current weather signs are pointing only one way and I will be perfectly happy to acknowledge it if the situation changes.

Given the record lows experienced over the last few weeks in the southern hemisphere, do you think this will continue and give a colder than normal winter in the north?

[Stephen Wilde]

I don't do prediction because trends can reverse without notice.

However on Netweather which I subscribe to there is an experimental forecast sequence which shows a good deal of blue and purple until April 2008.

We just have to wait and see. I want the truth as much as anyone and if we can take avoidance measures then so much the better. Can't do it on current knowledge though.

[Nimby]

Stephen

Thankyou for your interesting contribution and following posts.

The Danish Met office Climate researchers (10.8.07) are quoting the British Met office Climate researchers to say that after 2009 GW will really begin to show serious effects. The original British paper appears in Science magazine.

It claims that the last 7 years have the been the warmest since 1950. The next 10 years are expected to follow this trend.

This is the first time that a very short period climate forecast has been produced. Because it is so short term they were able to enter far more detail into their model than usual. Including sea temperatures and El niño and El Niña effects.

I will link to the Danish Met Office website piece but doubt it will mean much.
I could post a quick (ie. rough) English translation if it is of real interest.

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/eksperter__var...ibe_efter_2009

[Stephen Wilde]

Just looking at that Hadley chart more closely.

1) Apart from the EL Nino spike around 1998 the observations have been consistently below those predicted. After Mount Pinatubo substantially so.

2) There has been a clear recent downward trend.

3) The recent modification only brings the prediction a little closer to the lower observations so clearly there is still an unresolved problem. The sudden recent divergence from the prediction clearly influenced their need to issue an amendment. On the chart the prediction is going up with the observation going down.

4) From 2010 t0 2015 the prediction appears to be flat not rising. Usually a plateau precedes a fall.

Keep at it chaps.

Nimby, thanks for that but see my above comments on the Hadley chart.

My position is as an interested observer and commentator. I have no desire to prove anything either way. If MMGW is a real problem and can be influenced then I am in favour but I'm sure you've grasped my problem with it and my reasons.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Apparently others haven't missed it. The Hadley Centre now accommodates a period of natural cooling offsetting MMGW for at least 2 years. It wasn't saying that a short time ago.

You claimed to be seeing cooling. The Hadley forecast is for the underlying warming from anthropogenic CO2 to be temporarily partially mitigated (not reversed!) by natural climate variability. And it's a forecast, not a post-hoc justification for events already observed.

My list is possibly what is going on until shown otherwise by the external evidence. I might have gone too far with item 7 but that should be adequately dealt with by the current pressure to re -validate the recording sites especially in the USA where a significant proportion now seem to be hopelessly compromised.

It's not what is going on! You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is. And the attack on temperature measurements is a joke.

As regards long term/ short term. The problem we have is more generally known as the 'butterfly effect'. Tiny changes in the short term lead to widely differing outcomes in the medium or long term.
The so called 'wobbles' develop unpredictably over time to swamp what you see as a long term trend.

That is to woefully misunderstand the nature of chaotic behaviour. A chaotic system has bounds, and (loosely speaking), these are what are being explored by the long range climate models. It simply isn't the case that "anything can happen", as you seem to think.

I say we should wait and see and review our judgements frequently. You seem to think there is predictive certainty such as to justify disruption of all human civilisation. Your approach is untenable.

What I think is untenable is to imagine that we can continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the present rate (or higher) without the global mean temperature increasing at an unprecedented rate. Whatever our uncertainty about the regional climatic changes that will result (and they are considerable), a hotter planet will certainly be a very different planet. As I tried (in vain) to explain to MM, another 1C will make the planet hotter than it has been for a million years (thus easily encompassing the whole of human history and most of its pre-history too).

And as regards the recent heavy rains in UK and elsewhere. Climate is drier when the planet is warming because the air can hold more water. When cooling is in progress more water has to be dumped. All the current weather signs are pointing only one way and I will be perfectly happy to acknowledge it if the situation changes.

That's just wrong. The models predict, and the observations confirm, that patterns of precipitation change as the planet warms. There has been a 62mm increase in the annual precipitation trend over the past century over land areas located 40-70 degrees North, an 82mm increase in the southern tropics and subtropics (0-30 degrees South), and a 98mm decrease in precipitation in the northern tropics (0-30 degrees North). (Zhang, X. et al, 2007)

I will agree that there is no clear trend in summer precipitation in the UK, although we can expect more in the winter.

[Stephen Wilde]

njp,

Please stop harassing me with your obsessive and misleading nit picking.

My comments are not intended for you since you appear to be a lost cause.

Every time you post the tone is one of arrogance and you use insults freely. I had hoped you had learned your lesson.

Even the Edinburgh University recording station is on a postage stamp of grass surrounded by tarmac and a ring of multistorey buildings close by and surrounding it. The joke is the quality of current recording sites. The proper standards were abandoned by default years ago.

[Nimby]

I'm sorry, but I am at a complete loss to understand how selecting a particular date at a limited number of stations represents a global cooling trend.

Take your last example: N.E. of Azores 21 20 22 22 20

This represents nothing more than an average of 21 on a particular date.

Had you selected an earlier start and finish date for your series you would have proved a sustained warming trend of one degree.

There is not remotely enough data to confirm or deny anything.

Selecting stations to prove your cooling trend is obviously possible.

Would selecting stations to prove warming be just as easy?

Why not select alternative dates to prove cooling or warming trends to taste?

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

njp,

Please stop harassing me with your obsessive and misleading nit picking.

You mean my preference for facts and analysis rather than unfounded speculation based on cherry-picked data and no analysis?

My comments are not intended for you since you appear to be a lost cause.

Pot/kettle/black.

I could equally argue that the forum is not intended for you for exactly that reason (and given its stated purpose).

Every time you post the tone is one of arrogance and you use insults freely. I had hoped you had learned your lesson.

I have been very careful to avoid insults since l'affaire MM. I have merely pointed out why you are wrong. I'm afraid I don't know any other way to have a debate.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

You mean my preference for facts and analysis rather than unfounded speculation based on cherry-picked data and no analysis?


Pot/kettle/black.

I could equally argue that the forum is not intended for you for exactly that reason (and given its stated purpose).


I have been very careful to avoid insults since l'affaire MM. I have merely pointed out why you are wrong. I'm afraid I don't know any other way to have a debate.

Here we go again!

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

And the attack on temperature measurements is a joke.

Seems fairly straight forward to me:

www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html

The great and the good are in the process of backtracking on the early claims for AGW. As for Mann's claims, they're clearly the real joke now!

Oh, and I apoligise for my reference to 'dodgy' websites.

[pjclark1]

@njp

Could you at least state under what set of climate conditions you would admit to being wrong about AGW, are there any?
Do we have to wait for the next ice age?

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html

The great and the good are in the process of backtracking on the early claims for AGW. As for Mann's claims, they're clearly the real joke now!

"McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug. Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more."

"So how is this possible? How can the global warming numbers used in critical policy decisions and scientific models be so wrong with so basic of an error? And how can this error have gone undetected for the better part of a decade? The answer to the latter question is because the global warming and climate community resist scrutiny. This weeks Newsweek article and statements by Al Gore are basically aimed at suppressing any scientific criticism or challenge to global warming research. That is why NASA can keep its temperature algorithms secret, with no outside complaint, something that would cause howls of protest in any other area of scientific inquiry."

Is Global Warming a year 2000 software bug?

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by pjclark1

@njp

Do we have to wait for the next ice age?

Don't mention ice ages! I was promised an ice age in my youth.

I now have a collection of down gear which rivals Capel Curig and Betws-y-Coed combined!

Mind you, several cubic meters of down clothing make great sound absorption material for my AV room.

It's an ill wind....