bonmute..quote..""Mark Lawson,
you know very well "Hadley"(sic)
do not include data for the Arctic region""

last years cold winters
that doubled the ice thickness...may well be the reason

plus the absurdity of drowning polare bears
[one of the best swimming mammels]

""If they did the warming trend would be evident."'

yep the cooling trend
NOTING YOU DIDNT EVEN 'present it'
not even a volumous link

""yet again you*""
*Mark Lawson..?

""distort the facts for yor own agenda."'

WHO DONT?
think of who is getting the $$$$$$
they must have a MUCH bigger adgenda
[i know im not getting a penny]..mark MIGHT get some for writing
but betya...scientists adjusting the figures/numbers/data..are getting heaps more

FOLLOW THE MONEY*
read THEIR WORDS*

""This may help other readers,..""[edited]..""There are 5 major sources of global temperature data..which are most often referred to.""

read THE LAST WORD...!
YOUR WORDS..!

"""Three of them are estimates..""
*!*!(!]

GET IT
ESTIMATES
models
bling

the spin is in their ESTI-MATES*

""The other two are estimates*!*!""


so WHO GETS THE CASH
to make GUESSti-mates?

follow the money sonny

corrupt govt..
from corrupted..[sorry estimated] data....makes corrupted law
off corrupted collusions..via dirty money..seeking green cash flow

please note
only drug money
is keeping the whole finance system alive

the powers that be
want to stop the drug income
to turn it into tax income..but its the bankers
and money traders..that love trading in ever smaller carbon polution dispensations

the great white hope
of the next tradeable commodity
carbon credits...but ask yourself who will make them
when commodity traiters trade in them...who gets the cash

ever wonder why former bankers and accountants NEED this lie?
[they are broke
and they know it]

this is just another..'bailout'
of the vile money changers
wanting more cash

DIRECT..
not via them drug merchants
or indeed via govt..but nice neat carbon trading
trading a fear based fiction..with lies threats and namecalling

[noting the one
who owns the trade
controles the value]..

no reserve board to set intrest rates
just the backroom backdoor rich trading dudes..

of enron..goldman sax..haliburton..et'al
[in their latest incarnation
doing their latest scam]

for cash..bying nothing but air/fear/lies spin
ie sending good tax/cash after bad

real assets
for worthless c02..
carbonated..*promises..not even on paper

that YOU NEED TO BUY..EVERY YEAR..anew
so their mates can get free income
credit/bonus*/commisions/income
for the next hundred years

basedecon fear and their next fiction

this is near as clever as the eu..[pheewww]
paying farmers..NOT to farm

Curmudgeon,

You say "The clear upward trend you speak off becomes very confused when you look at the details."

Now I see where you are going wrong. When you are looking to see if a broad underlying trend exists on a chart you don't look at the details. Temperatures fluctuate for all sorts of reasons what is important here is the trend, not the details or short term variability.

You then say temperatures "fell betwen 1940 about and the mid-70s. Why?". In my last post which you (again) wrongly said was largely irrelevant I said "Check out www.skepticalscience.com for an explanation of why there was a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975."

You obviously didn't so let me be more explicit. Go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and check out argument number 45.

In fact next time you have a query go to this link again, find you query and read up about it before posting it on this site.
So for example all the other questions you have on the temperature record are also addressed here.

Bonmot - no, I always use the UAH satellite data. Its audited and not subject to the vast problems of the ground network. However, it does tell much the same story as Hadley, so the Hadley data must have something going for it, despite their bad behaviour during Climategate. I only referred to Hadley for your benefit. It also remains the mostly commonly used one, for better or worse.

Rich2 - looked at your reference. That is not an explanation, it is an excuse, and in fact its now known to be wrong. The major trend in climate at the moment is the identification of climate cycles.. The switching of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now thought to have caused the change in the mid-1970s, just as its switch from warm to cool mode is thought to have caused the present hiatus in temps. The AMO (Atlatnic Merdional Oscillation) has also switched. I haven't heard anyone talk about aerosols for years.

So what causes the changes in ocean cycles? No one has any idea.

Curmudgeon,

Re explanation for a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975 "That is not an explanation, it is an excuse, and in fact its now known to be wrong."

Really?! - please reference the peer reviewed scientific literature.

"The switching of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now thought to have caused the change in the mid-1970s, just as its switch from warm to cool mode is thought to have caused the present hiatus in temps."

Please reference the peer reviewed scientific literature.

@Curmudgeon: Okay, to anyone familiar with the computer models

You are taking so someone who has written a few computer models in his time...

@Curmudgeon: the section you cited is straight nonsense

and so I know this is plain wrong.

@Curmudgeon: Those models as they stand are extremely sensitive to starting conditions

No. Weather models are sensitive to starting conditions. Climate models aren't. The output wouldn't be so useful if they were, so they test and allow for it http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/265.htm :

"it is now becoming common to repeat the prediction many times from different perturbed initial states"

@Curmudgeon: but 25 square kms.. what rot

What a poor understand you have of simulations. No one is claiming the simulation is accurate over 25 klms. The element size of the simulation is 25 kms. Smaller would be preferred, but every time you half the dimensions of the element the computing power goes up by a factor of 16.

@Curmudgeon: the results are in finer detail, but that does not mean they are more accurate.

The point I made originally was increasing computing power means they can produce more localised predictions, not that they were more accurate. So apparently we agree.

@Rich2: Temperatures are on a clear upward trend as is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I wouldn't get too hung up on this. Climate is measured over decades not years. Even 10 years of consecutive drops wouldn't tell us much about the accuracy of the climate models.

I don't see how they have a hope predicting year to year temperatures, as their understanding of ocean currents seems crude. The energy released/absorbed by a 0.001 degree change in the sea water below the column of air it supports is enough to change the entire column temperature by 1 degree (assuming a sea depth of 2klm). So an unexpected upwelling of cold water will have huge effects - as El Nino shows us. It must take decades to average the effects of the oceans currents, so Curmudgeon nosily pointing to temperature trends over a few years is just that - noise.