On 1 Sep, 20:42, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
>> January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
>> climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
>> almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."
>
>> "...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
>> remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
>> kind."
>
>> Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
>> the relevant URL.
>
> I am well aware of the views, presented as fact by a government body.
> However, I was looking at the data they produced, not the speculation. The
> Hadley Centre data also suffers from the same problem that the NASA data
> does; it is based on surface temperature measurements, which means fixed
> point measurements, more likely to be near centres of population than in
> remote areas, which makes it all the more surprising that they do not show
> any increase in global temperatures since 1998 - note the use of standard
> government fudge terms like 'underlying rise over the longer term' and 'is
> predicted to remain upwards' to avoid drawing attention to that by discusing
> actual figures.
>
So now you are saying the source you gave was not much use after all
or even wrong?
I don't see what you consider so special about the University of
Alabama, compared with, say, the specialist Met Office and IPCC. Also,
like all the other GW/CC motorist deniers on this newsgroup you make
the same odd mistake of confusing timescales as well as global/local.
1978-2008 is a mere fluctuation blip in GW, which has shown a
significant rise since the onset of the industrial revolution as all
records show.
>
> Translated, globally, June 2008 is provisionally 0.11C below the average for
> the past 20 years, while May is 0.18C below. This is based upon satellite
> data, which measures the whole globe from the surface to about 8km above sea
> level and is considered much more reliable than surface temperature
> measurements.
>
Again, 20 years is a mere blip.
What makes you seriously imagine that the Met Office, with all their
considerable experience and resources, is wrong with its
interpretation of data while you alone are correct?
> ....
>
>>> "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
>>> 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
>>> oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
>
>> That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has happened
>> since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for the
>> passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records from
>> before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow the
>> facts to get in the way.
>
>> What about ice cores?
>
> What about them? We know the passages were open no later than the early 20th
> century, so the ice covering them cannot be older than that.
>
Ice cores are a very ancient record.
>
>> Check this out then:
>
>
>> "...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
>> linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
>> those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
>> caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
>> effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
>> CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
>> CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
>> warming."
>
> That is, indeed, the official government line. I do not believe in the
> infallibility of governments, even if they do.
>
And I don't believe in the infallibility of individual motorist
polluters like you who have a vested interest in denying GW.
