Climate4You Update

Dear Jennifer,

Please find below a link which will take you directly to a monthly newsletter (ca. 1.5 MB) with global meteorological information updated to June 2012:

All temperatures in this newsletter are shown in degrees Celsius.

Previous issues (since March 2009) of this newsletter, diagrams and additional material are available for download on

All the best, yours sincerely,
Ole Humlum
Professor of Physical Geography
University of Oslo, Norway

PS The following chart from the update shows the change in ocean heat content for the top 700 metres since January 1955 from the National Oceanographic Data Center:

77 Responses to Climate4You Update

  1. Debbie July 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    As well as the info you have highlighted above Jen,
    The info on pp 20 to 23 is also interesting.
    ‘Diagrams showing HadCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC monthly global surface air temperature estimates (blue) and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content (red) according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958, and 1958 has therefore been chosen as starting year for the diagrams. Reconstructions of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before 1958) are not incorporated in this diagram, as such past CO2 values are derived by other means (ice cores, stomata, or older measurements using different methodology, and therefore are not directly comparable with direct atmospheric measurements. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate linear temperature trend, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature, negative or positive. Please note that the HadCRUT3 diagram has not been updated beyond May 2012.’

    That C02 correlation using data that this organisation considers is the currently ‘best available’ is STILL showing negative from approx late 2001 all the way to May 2012.
    other than the usual and necessary cautions about the veracity and the sources of the data…it makes no extra political, predictive judgements….just merely demonstrates the CURRENT OBSERVED behaviour of avg temp in relation to C02.
    Also of note….this newsletter and associated data sets does not pretend to be any more than it actually is…which is an interesting and useful observatory tool.
    ‘All five global temperature estimates presently show an overall stagnation, at least since 2002. There has been no increase in global air temperature since 1998, which however was affected by the oceanographic El Niño event. This stagnation does not exclude the possibility that global temperatures will begin to increase again later. On the other hand, it also remain a possibility that Earth just now is passing a temperature peak, and that global temperatures will begin to decrease within the coming years. Time will show which of these two possibilities is correct.’

  2. bazza July 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    reasons why no one has replied could include: 1) too short a time since the last time this appeared and climate changes a bit slower than weather, 2) they are still embarassed by thier comments last time 3) they are desperately trying to source ug boots as word gets out about global cooling 4) they are still laughing at the extrapolation of sea level rise to 2100 using the last 3 years moving average as a sighter.

  3. Debbie July 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    I disagree Bazza,
    The trend that is explained pp 20 to 23 has now got ten years under its belt.
    Isn’t a decadel timeframe an acceptable statistical trend anymore?
    What’s the timeframe ‘cutoff’ button that allows weather to morph into climate when we study this type of work?
    I also note you are very concerned about people’s feelings….which is odd because this particular newsletter is not a big commenter on ‘feelings’…embarassment, desperation, laughter or otherwise….in fact (IMHO) it is rather devoid of feelings and overwhelmingly focuses on measureable data and observations.

  4. bazza July 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    Deb , I was longing for you to add value to what you said in March. ( the others wont). Even Cohers knows a decade is not enough – and what a decade it was. Do you think variability is increasing?. Empirical research says yes.Once again you are happy to quote a passage with El Nino in it, but no recognition of the influence of La Ninas since then, Last time I wrote “Deb set the tone with her opening gambit “I have to giggle at the graph that shows the lack of correlation between C02 levels and temp”. Deb, only read on if you have got over your giggling about those pesky periods when the temperature graph intermittently not ever rising like the CO2 one with the wiggles. Not funny for the victims, but they were periods dominated by La Ninas as you well know. Then again it is not unusual to make jokes about what you dont understand.”

  5. Debbie July 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Are you implying that I am a sad victim of a human induced tragedy caused by human C02 emissions?
    I thought I was a computer generated failure of a Turing test?
    And why would I even bother to try and answer your question about variability when you are highly repetetive in your accusations about my inability to understand, to read and apparently my inability to care?
    I’ll make a deal with you….if you would care to explain how and why these Climate4You updates are so laughably wrong with their methodology and their use of the data…. and why they upset you so much….preferably without the added literary/philosophical/political/metaphorical/rhetorical insults (if you can possibly manage it)….I may consider taking your questions seriously.
    But thank you for at least vaguely attempting to answer my question about when weather is allowed to morph into climate….even though it was acompanied by a sneering shot at another frequent visitor to Jen’s blog.

  6. bazza July 21, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    deal Deb. What did you think of the extrapolation of sea level rise to 2100 using the last 3 years moving average

  7. Debbie July 21, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    Do you mean the compared graphs on pp 18/19 with this description?
    Forecasted change of global sea level until year 2100, based on simple extrapolation of measurements done by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder, USA. The thick line is the simple running 3 yr average forecast for sea level change until year 2100. Based on this (thick line), the present simple empirical forecast of sea level change until 2100 is about +18 cm.
    BTW…I duly note the graphs only have info to 2012…. and it’s a very basic comparison…and they’re not correlating with each other.
    Reread the deal Bazza,
    I wanted to know the hows and whys or the reasons these observations upset you.
    However,my THOUGHTS as opposed to the actual statistical exercise are…. that a 3 year data set based on moving averages, is probably not a good basis to extrapolate 88 years with any ‘certainty or confidence’ and that the extrapolation is an interesting exercise in computer generated statistical analysis….and that’s about it.
    They would become more ‘informative’ and ‘comparable’ as they continue to update and track with ‘real time’ data.
    Or as they do say quite often in one form or another when:
    ‘Time will show which of these two possibilities is correct.’
    Dont’ forget though Bazza…. my question would be….have they actually done anything WRONG in the stated context of the exercise?

  8. jennifer July 21, 2012 at 6:35 pm #


    I agree that extrapolating sealevel to 2100 based on a simple moving average is pretty stupid.

    Interesting CSIRO and the IPPC do this sort of thing all the time, simply adding a computer simulation based on an already discredited theory of climate change known as AGW.

  9. bazza July 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    Deal finished Deb. Jen trumped your call and agreded the extrapolation was pretty stupid. I won. Now Jen , theory discredited by who? Name a few Australian climate scientists and their basis for this alleged discrediting. Otherwise you are deluded or worse.

  10. jennifer July 21, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    Bazza. I’m not done.

    Professor Humlum, and perhaps also Debbie, look to understand the many claims in the scientific literature and also the popular press of likely catastrophic sea level rise by 2100.

    They take a more simplistic approach than the IPCC and CSIRO, they simply extrapolate from a simple moving average.

    Their approach is no more stupid than the approach taken by the IPCC and the CSIRO.

    Can you explain to me how adding a computer simulation model driven by carbon dioxide to the mix improves the accuracy of the extrapolation?

  11. Luke July 22, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    “many claims in the scientific literature” “likely catastrophic sea level rise ” such as? can you reference a journal perhaps paper? AR4 for example is 18 – 59cm

    ” they simply extrapolate from a simple moving average.” they do? can you reference a paper?

    Having once had a good yarn to John Church he didn’t seem that stupid. But of course I didn’t ask him outright.

    “a computer simulation model driven by carbon dioxide ” oh I don’t think that’s right – models are “driven” by all manner of things

  12. Neville July 22, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Alright Bazza for the zillionith time using all the models on SLR for both Greenland and Antarctica. That’s 99% of the planets ice until 2300.

    Explain how the positive Greenland (10%) and the negative Antarctica (89%) can lead to dangerous SLR?

    This is using all the models so beloved by Luke and yourself and covering the next 300 years.

  13. Dennis Webb July 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    Great Luke. Thanks. Rather than take Debs and Humlum’s approach that is to just extrapolate from a simple moving average, you suggest it is OK to add on a computer model that is driven by “all manner of things”? Much more fun I guess, your approach. But properly stupid.

  14. Luke July 22, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Tremendous contribution Dennis.

  15. bazza July 22, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Jen, you claimed “Interesting CSIRO and the IPPC do this sort of thing all the time, simply adding a computer simulation based on an already discredited theory of climate change known as AGW”. I asked “Now Jen , theory discredited by who? Name a few Australian climate scientists and their basis for this alleged discrediting. Otherwise you are deluded or worse”. A non-response to a fundamental question like that would usually suggest that one is dealing with a fraud and a front.

  16. Jennifer Marohasy July 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    It is my opinion that the theory has been discredited. My opinion.
    But if we can return to the substantive scientific issue… How can the IPCC and CSIRO claim to be able to predict significant sealevel rise 100 years out? How are there claims credible?

  17. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    You won?
    What do you think you won?
    Jen trumped ?
    It appears you must only be interested in scoring cheap points and taking prickly personal offense?
    You asked for my THOUGHTS on a particular section and I answered….other than being an interesting statistical exercise….it held no real value…..and it didn’t pretend otherwise.
    Jen used ‘pretty stupid’ which is a sharper but nonetheless similar answer.
    You completely failed to answer questions that we both asked.
    MY QUESTION….which you have failed to answer…. was about the validity of the statistical methodology that has been used.
    JEN’s QUESTION….which you have also failed to answer was… whether this is essentially different to what IPPC and CSIRO have done with SOME (repeat SOME!!!!) of their statistical extrapolations.
    The questions are somewhat similar….because they both ask about the way the data has been statistically presented….and your assessment of that.
    Instead we get a comment that concludes:
    ‘Otherwise you are deluded or worse.’
    And Luke comes muscling in with:
    ‘Having once had a good yarn to John Church he didn’t seem that stupid.’
    I find it hilarious that Luke claims Jen thinks John Church is stupid.
    And then you chime in again with:
    ‘Name a few Australian climate scientists and their basis for this alleged discrediting.’
    Is it all about hero worship and pseudo psychology for you guys?
    And all this after you agreed to lay off the personal stuff and explain your specific objection to the Climate4You statistical work?
    And you philosophise why people like me do not take you seriously?

    SO Bazza….How about you make a genuine attempt to answer the questions?
    My unanswered question is:
    Have they (Climate4You) actually done anything WRONG in the stated context of the exercise?
    Jen’s was more specific:
    Can you explain to me how adding a computer simulation model driven by carbon dioxide to the mix improves the accuracy of the extrapolation?

  18. John Turner July 23, 2012 at 9:08 am #

    The chart axis is strange. Are the Giga-joules per cubic metre or per 700 cubic metres They certainly cannot be per square metre as shown. As I mentioned after the initial post on ocean warming, a similar chart on ocean heat content, published in the Economist, appeared to indicate that the average ocean temperature will increase one degree (C) over the next fourteen centuries.

  19. bazza July 23, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    Jen, one question at a time and I got in first. ( Deb, you lost on the deal – you cant amend it – move on!) You claimed “Interesting CSIRO and the IPPC do this sort of thing all the time, simply adding a computer simulation based on an already discredited theory of climate change known as AGW”. I asked “Now Jen , theory discredited by who? Name a few Australian climate scientists and their basis for this alleged discrediting”.
    You do have some form I was trying to tap into. You wrote (Viewpoint a May 5) on the need to “cast around a little wider” and listen to “the many well-qualified meteorologists, hydrologists and paleoclimatologists” on the basis they offer more accurate forecasts on a climate change not driven by carbon dioxide. Cast around I did. In Australia the many are few – three in fact; but one of each namely Kinninmonth, Franks and Plimer or is it the self styled Carter gone paleo. I can find no others from those disciplines offering forecasts. and none have runs in recent climate change science.

  20. jennifer July 23, 2012 at 10:45 am #


    I suggest we agree to disagree on whether the theory of AGW has been discredited or not; history will be the eventual arbiter. It is after all just a theory. Can we agree on this?

    You clearly believe in the theory. I accept you believe in the theory. Some use the theory, that you believe in, to claim catastrophic sea level rise by 2100. Can you please justify this? How can the theory be credibly used to extrapolate sea level rise to 2100.

    This is the original point of contention, whether or not it is credible to extrapolate to 2100.

  21. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    And if you can possibly manage it, preferably without the personal comments? ? ?

  22. el gordo July 23, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    ‘This is the original point of contention, whether or not it is credible to extrapolate to 2100.’

    Indeed…and for my two bob’s worth I envision sea level falling because of atmospheric cooling. Assuming CO2 is innocent of the charges laid against it, or for those with a sceptical frame of mind, the effect is ‘insignificant’.

    So the wavey line will be heading south to match the LIA.

  23. Luke July 23, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Jen – you’re meming away and into newspeak.

    “Catastrophic” – predictable sceptic nuancing – there is a prediction range with a quantifiable impact on areas affected

    More than “theory” there are existing data and trends – and many system components under intense study – putting the issue off as some obscure “theory: like relativity theory or dark matter is simply smoke-screening

    El Gordo – has a theory – it’s called the pulling ideas out of thin air wiggly line theory

  24. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    same comment.
    That is not an answer to the very specific question.
    That is a comment/answer on another question that has not been asked.

  25. jennifer July 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    Bazza wrote in this thread:

    Debbie, What did you think of the extrapolation of sea level rise to 2100 using the last 3 years moving average?

    I replied stupid.

    I then added (the following is a paraphrase):

    Bazza, What do you think of the extrapolation of sea level rise to 2100 using a computer model based on AGW theory?

    I don’t mind if Luke answers for Bazza. But this is as specific as I’m going to get. Its the essence of entire research programs within CSIRO.

  26. Robert July 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    All this talk of “top flight people” doing “intense research” into “many system components”…

    Hell, we all know what the “findings” will be from all this fiddled and superficial crud. “It’s worse than we thought, but not catastrophic, just sorta catastrophic.”

    Can’t we just give these people some money and medals to go away? When the resource boom ends, everyone is going to need a real job. Let them start looking now.

  27. Luke July 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Just rubbish comments Robert. Speculative rat dirt. It’s so easy to sit out there in la la land and spray this stuff. You wouldn’t go to the vast amount of trouble they do to make something up. It’s only the product of a 30 year career mate not some last 3 years temp job. So “we don’t all know” – you’re just ranting.

    But Jen’s setting the tone here by only wanting to make generalisations. So much for an evidence based blog discussion once held in esteeem.

  28. jennifer July 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    Go with this if you like Luke, I’ve just added in 2100:

    “we would be facing metres of sea-level rise [by 2100] as oceans continue to warm and polar ice sheets melt and disintegrate.”

    from Will Steffan in today’s The Australian.

  29. Robert July 23, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Why, Luke, only a couple of days ago you were opening up your own branch of June Dally-Watkins here to teach us good deportment!

    Anyway, that sea level rise which began (maybe) after Waterloo seems to have been followed by some warming around the middle of the nineteenth century. All that cold and ice around the middle of the twentieth century was a bit of a downer, but look on the bright side. One can draw lines from the icy seventies based on the satellite record and get a ripper of an Arctic Death Spiral. (Thank Gaia there were no busy-body satellites in the early 1920s!)

  30. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Is that right Luke?
    And what would you call your comments at 11.15 am?
    No offence….but to me they definitely look like generalisations….and particularly rude ones as well.
    However and regardless, I still note a complete failure to actually answer the questions about the METHODOLOGY that has been used.
    Has Climate4You done something WRONG in the stated context?
    Jen’s question which is more sepcific is also unanswered.

    Definition of ‘theory’.
    1)Supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independant of the particular things to be explained.
    2) A speculative view
    3) The sphere of abstract knowledge or speculative thought
    4) The exposition of the principles of a science.
    5) Math. a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.
    Origin: Late Latin: theoria. From Greek, via theros: spectator ‘look at’.
    Synonyms: Which for something like this are usually phrases:
    1)A coherent group of of general propositions used to to test and explain a phenomena.
    2) That department of a science or art which deals with its principles or methods as distinguished from the practice of it
    3) Conjecture or opinion.

    So Luke,
    What does ‘more than theory’ mean?
    What does ‘obscure theory ‘ mean?
    And if we are not discussing a theory….what are we discussing?

    But please Luke….they are extra questions….not alternate ones.
    You have still not answered the current questions.

  31. bazza July 23, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Jen, you cant hide behind agreeing to disagree. You stated “Interesting CSIRO and the IPPC do this sort of thing all the time, simply adding a computer simulation based on an already discredited theory of climate change known as AGW”. I asked “Now Jen , theory discredited by who? Name a few Australian climate scientists and their basis for this alleged discrediting”. This is your show and it only exists because you continue to claim stuff on what you claim is an “already discredited theory of climate change known as AGW”. And at a moment of truth, you run away with Deb barking at your heels. Call this an evidence based blog . No , its just your opinions. Scientists are true sceptics and usually happy to defend because science is self-correcting in contrast to denialists.

  32. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    What part of CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS do you not understand?
    Jen has agreed to disagree about OPINIONS….. so to quote you…. MOVE ON!!!!!!
    Whether she can or can’t hide behind whatever is quote you… just your OPINION!!!!!!
    If you want to contribute to an evidence based discussion…. to quote you yet again.

  33. Luke July 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    Oooo wah – Bazza got Debs that riled up that she said WTF (wonderful tree frogs!)

    Jeez Jen in all the excitement I can’t remember whether it was 5 shots or 6.

    Jen you inserted 2100 – Will Steffan didn’t. Metres in the longer run is definitely possible. I don’t think his open ended rhetorical piece is a precise view of the science.

    So would you like to cite what you think the science on sea level for 2100 says (whether you agree with it or not).

  34. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Would you like to cite what’s wrong with the Climate4You methodology? Bazza doesn’t seem to be able to.
    Is there any reason why you are also unable to answer that question or the more specific question that Jen asked?
    I agree about Steffen. It has nothing much to do with science.
    Maybe you might need to apply some credible evidence to qualify your ‘definitely possible’ comment?
    AR4 says 18 to 59 cm ( already referenced by you) so where do we find metres in the long run that are definitely possible?
    And what has that got to do with an evidence based discussion?
    And BTW, Bazza has got nothing. . .except a self proclaimed win and answers to his own questions.

  35. bazza July 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Deb, move on yourself. You are in danger of becoming the resident whinger. Go back to Lukes rules for would be activists. You are a consistent violator of Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” You cant apply Rule 8 unless you tart up your style a bit. RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. Your repertoire is a bit limited. And think twice before you hit the caps lock – it means you are losing it. And if you keep echoing Jen and being her lapdog, you are redundant. Pity she wont defend herself tho.

  36. Robert July 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Deb, I’m happy to read your remarks. Bazza is hardly the most fluent and articulate of commenters. As for repetition…

  37. bazza July 24, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    Deb, your mate Jen trumped me. She said that SLR extrapolation was stupid.She doesnt need evidence – opinions are fine. Stuff the Socratic method.

  38. jennifer July 24, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    I’ve just deleted about one dozen comments from this thread. I probably should have deleted a lot more.
    Most of the comment is repetitive and puerile, but I only deleted nasty personal attacks.

  39. Debbie July 24, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Let me try it this way.
    I am really totally uninterested in all your attempts to ‘assign’ personality faults to me… those accusations actually say more about you than anything else.
    I am not a failed computer test, delusional, a lapdog, illiterate, uncaring, an advocate, a victim, a whinger, uneducated, a Luke’s rules violater or any of the other numerous accusations you keep trying to lay at my feet.
    I am not even interested in ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ because I don’t think the sort of work we are looking at should be about ‘sides’….I believe it should be about valid results and practical/useful outcomes.

    I find the work from Climate4You useful, interesting and statistically valid.
    This work uses statistics and projective modelling in the same manner that I use them in my own business.
    It simply compiles the raw data so that we can observe and also track any ‘trends’ or ‘patterns’.
    The stat procedures appear valid to me and, because it’s satistically & technically possible, it also ‘extrapolates’ some of those trends and patterns .
    I particularly applaud Climate4You for meticulously updating their work when new raw data becomes available.
    Climate4You often points out what I believe is correct….that time and real data will be the final judge of any projection.
    Because I use stat models in my business I am acutely aware that they must be meticulously updated if they are to remain a useful management tool.
    These Climate4You updates do not pretend to be anything other than what they are….which is a useful tool to observe and track the weather/climate and its interraction with other sets of data such as sea levels and C02 levels.

    You were very clear that something was wrong with the work.
    In particular you were critical of the extrapolation of SLR using moving averages.
    While I believe that extrapolating nearly 100 years out probably has little practical value/meaning as a tool to make any management decisions, I fail to see what was invalid about the statistical procedure within its clearly stated context.
    My question was genuine as you have presented yourself as a well informed person regarding this type of work and even Luke seems to think you are.
    I cannot see what it is about Climat4You’s work that so obviously upsets you.
    I could ‘assign’ reasons why I think you object to the Climate4You work but that would just be me answering my own questions.
    I am actually interested in your answer.
    Is there something wrong with the methodology used by Climate4You?

  40. toby July 24, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    hahahaha, thank goodness Luke has a sense of humour.

    Luke says bazza is owning these threads. Sure, if being the prize sanctimonious dill means owning the threads.
    He never responds to questions. He and you have been blown away by many of the links and points made in the last few days….and yet you have both ignored them or made smart arse comments dismissing them…..hows the backradiation going at heating the oceans?

    He ignores basically all evidence thrown up that shoots down the theory.

    He talks about variance by highlighting the variance between a known cool period 1950-1980 and known warm period 1980-2000 and suggest he wins.The newspaper articles that Chris G linked to make interesting reading…hows that for variance baz?!

    Baz makes deals which he immediatly breaks with a “i win, deal over.”
    At least you have a sense of humour Luke, bazza is just a bitter person weighed down by the doom of his belief….

    I wouldnt bother to engage with him…….. everybody.

    then we have will stefan out and about exagerating and reinventing what he has said in teh recent past to push his unbiased and impartial agenda of doom and gloom on a supposedly independent body…..sad sad sad, that science has sunk to this level….and warmers have the cheek to talk about cherry picking.

    …and the hide to support him!

  41. bazza July 24, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    Toby my point was about increasing variability, not comparing averages from a cool period and a warm period. The comparison of extent of extremes I quoted was between 1951-80 and 2006 to 2011. The latter period actually had a few La Niña events ( including a record warm La Nina event) so the comparison is even more compelling and extraordinary unfortunately. I said “ The climate has changed and it has changed climate variability, says lots of AGW evidence . Extreme heat anomalies covered less than 0.2% of the globe over the period from 1951-80. But 2006 to 2011 extremes covered from 4-13%. Temperatures are not just warmer, they are more variable. ( As in New Scientist 7 July 2012 and from Hansen.)” Toby, I would be interested in your interpretation of that.?

  42. Debbie July 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Please don’t take prickly personal offense…. but you haven’t made a point about increasing variabilty.
    You have commented that AGW evidence claims it is a statistically significant increasing phenomenon.
    Also…no offense intended… but you did validate that statement by highlighting a comparison of extremes and the Hansen article….which is essentially (as far as stats is concerned) no different to comparing averages.
    But in essence…within the context of your amended comment….AGW evidence …. does in fact conclude something along those lines….in those particular models.
    Interestingly, when Climate4You statistically tracks the same data without a focus or statistical ‘forcing’ or ‘overlay’ on AGW evidence….some statistical conclusions are similar and some are not.
    Which is why I asked you the original question.
    As far as I can see….there isn’t anything wrong with the methodology in the Climate4You statistical work….but you clearly believe there is.

  43. Luke July 24, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Toby – well Jen didn’t think it was funny. But I did. As for background heating the oceans. Yep did the discussion but the signal to noise lost the discussion.

    Bazza’s not bitter – he’s just good. And the responses here simply woeful.

  44. Robert July 24, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    The amount of play given by words like “extreme”, “record” and “variability” is pretty well infinite. If the government wants me to prove the earth is turning into a pink lamington, just give me the staff and a few weeks. Really…whatever you want, you’ve got it. It’s like submerging the Maldives on paper while the new airstrips and super-lux hotels rise above the ground.

    The trick is to be very intricate about selected numbers and factoids…and to be a total slob with language.

  45. bazza July 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Deb, I have not taken offense. But I find it quite useless to engage with anyone who endlessly responds with a question. Did Jen teach you the Socratic method. Dont use it on her tho. She then runs and agrees to disagree.

  46. Debbie July 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    Gee whiz Bazza,
    Apart from the fact that there were no endless questions in my last comment….
    It’s only one question.
    I may have reworded it a couple of times in an (apparently disgracefully misguided) attempt to help make it clearer, but it is essentially the same question.
    I am actually interested in your answer….not your opinion of me.
    I also have no wish to offend you.
    Other than the fact that the question is being asked on Jen’s blog and she did indeed ask another related question and she did indeed contribute her opinion….my question doesn’t have anything to do with methods taught by Jen or her ability to disagree or agree or anything else about Jen.
    I wasn’t asking Jen the question….I was asking you.
    I’m not responsible for Jen’s opinions, I do not know why she does or doesn’t do whatever you say she doesn’t or does nor do I have any ulterior motive to answer for her or defend her or be her lap dog or yap at her heels etc etc etc.
    She also doesn’t need me to defend her character or vice versa. From my perspective, all those comments are irrelevant.
    If you don’t want to answer the question Bazza ….just say so.
    That will be fine by me.
    I will be disappointed, but that’s entirely my problem not yours.
    As I attempted to explain above, your continued excuses that claim you can’t answer because of numerous personality flaws that you have assigned to me….or something that Jen wrote…doesn’t mean anything or prove anything that would have anything to do with the methodology of the Climate4You statistical work.
    Truly Bazza….I am interested in your answer….because I can’t see any errors in the methodology that was used in the Climate4You updates but you appeared to believe there were flaws and errors.

  47. bazza July 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Deb, I am in total agreement with your words back a few days. “However,my THOUGHTS as opposed to the actual statistical exercise are…. that a 3 year data set based on moving averages, is probably not a good basis to extrapolate 88 years with any ‘certainty or confidence’ and that the extrapolation is an interesting exercise in computer generated statistical analysis….and that’s about it.” And thats about it from me.

  48. Debbie July 24, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    That’s nice to know that you agreed with my THOUGHTS….which was actually my answer to your question… not your answer to my question.
    That was me honouring my part of the deal…. not you honouring yours.
    My question is/was:
    Have they (Climate4You) actually done anything WRONG in the stated context of the exercise?
    Like I said Bazza,
    If you don’t want to answer it….just say so.

  49. toby July 25, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    If you are defining variability by extreme heat anomalies then i assume they are using some rate of difference beyond the mean measure being selected ( daily, day time, night time, weekly, mnthly annual etc) for the warm 2006-11 period vs the respective mean from the cool base line period of 1951-80. I would expect the hot period to have more high temperatures and therefore more potential for extreme heat abnormalities….wouldnt you?

  50. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Yes Toby,
    that would be entirely valid from a statsistical perspective.
    Apparently however, we have moved to comparing the ‘coldest’.
    That shows a slight anomoly when it is averaged, but it is also not conforming to the stat projections in real time.
    However, is that anomoly very concerning and/or is human C02 a significant driver?
    If it did show a corresponing noticeable anomoly at the hottest and it did statistically correlate with rises in human C02 emissions and then tracked inside the projected ranges as it updated, then maybe there is some significance (statiscally).
    Otherwise, it seems more likely that there are much more statistically significant ‘others’ that are preventing that other side of the equation and possibly that slight anomoly of averaged ‘coldest’.
    The atmosphere and the oceans may not be as sensitive to C02 as the original hypothesis hypothesises.

  51. toby July 25, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    there are few truer statements than the famous”lies, damn lies and statistics”. It doesnt matter which side of the fence you sit on, people abuse data and frequently completely subconsciously.
    When it comes to variability I found some of the past newspaper articles linked to by chris G on an earlier post very enlightening, and if you really want to see evidence of past weather events, then check out the amazing events that have been documented over the last few thousand years!

    the correlation between co2 and temp is not one that can be easily seen in a chart of temp and emissions…as climate4you data makes pretty clear…as does a look at a temp chart from 1880-2012 with co2. as many times when co2 climbs that temp falls…and couple that with strong evidence from proxy data that co2 lags temp increases…then you need to rewrite history to find co2 as a blatant culprit.

    Mention this fact on a warmer blog and you get shot down for ignoring PETM….this may be an example of co2 leading warming…but it should be abundantly clear that negative feedback effects dominate climate, otherwise we would be in a far more chaotic state!

  52. bazza July 25, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    The comparison of 1951-80 and 2006 to 2011 illustrated that there had been a very large increase in the area of the globe impacted by extreme temperatures. ( extreme is defined here as a way out 3 SD for the stats fans). Now La NInas are the major regular contributor to cool periods in the short term as far as I know. So from 1951-80 they averaged about one in four years as you would expect over a period of that length. From 2006 to 2011 cooling La Ninas were about twice as frequent so you might expect fewer extremes other things being equal. They most clearly are not. The definition of extreme is about a 1 in a thousand probability. Extreme heat anomalies covered less than 0.2% of the globe over the period from 1951-80. But 2006 to 2011 extremes covered from 4-13%. Those are the facts – your beliefs are another matter. Apologies for the repetition to those who got it the first time but as the rest of the article showed, increasing variability, not just an increase in the means would be needed to get that big and alarming a change.

  53. Robert July 25, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    Can someone tell the guy that the years from the fifties to the end of the seventies were part of a mid-century cooling we all know about and discuss frequently? Neg PDO (interesting influence, if still poorly understood), Global Cooling scare and massive ice in the Arctic by the 70s. The fifty years before that were a totally different story. Global Warming scares, documented low-ice minima in the Arctic in the early1920s, dustbowl conditions in the thirties in both US and Oz, half a century of rain deficit in most of Oz after the Fed drought, in spite of some ruinous floods and cold waves (for variability!)…

    For hardcore fans of variability and extremes, two of the three most lethal weather disasters in recorded human history occurred in the 1930s – floods in China!

    Lastly, the nature of the 2009 El Nino was completely different to those that came before, in that period after the late seventies. Same with La Nina. If we can’t see reality for superficial stats and ill understood influences expressed as simplistic mechanisms and levers, then we will end up believing any old trash.

    I, too, apologise for any repetition.

  54. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    Did you also happen to notice that one of the few actual comments Bazza made about the Climate4You work was:
    climate changes a bit slower than weather,
    Followed by a rebuttal to my question about timeframes that pointed out that even Cohers knows that 10 years is not long enough (re the info on pp22-23 of Climate4You update)
    Now apparently, the period between 2006 to 2011, which according to my maths is 5 YEARS is indicative of a:
    a very large increase in the area of the globe impacted by extreme temperatures.
    Not only that:
    From 2006 to 2011 cooling La Ninas were about twice as frequent so you might expect fewer extremes other things being equal. They most clearly are not.
    And amazingly a 5YEAR timeframe is also now enough to make this statement:
    But 2006 to 2011 extremes covered from 4-13%.
    All of these are compared to a 29 year timeframe 51 – 80
    By Bazza’s own (rather vague) defintion of weather versus climate….wouldn’t a 5 year timeframe be just weather and also just commenting on wiggles?
    It appears Bazza accepts it is for OK for Hansen to use and draw conclusions from a 5 YEAR timeframe but it’s not OK for Humlum to use a 10 year timeframe?
    Perhaps he is correct and it is is all about that ‘other matter’?

  55. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 11:30 pm #

    It appears that the increase in extreme events is not actually materialising in our part of the world?
    Or indeed anywhere else?

  56. Luke July 26, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    Debs – as an exercise look up what the IPCC says about storminess. Report back.

  57. Debbie July 26, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    IPPC – different – I know.
    Is there something wrong with the observations of Climate4You and other observations that have been linked here?
    Is their methodology faulty?
    Have they incorrectly observed/recorded the evidence?
    And… what is an acceptable timeframe to observe climate as opposed to weather?
    So far it appears that there isn’t one….it just depends on whom is making the observations.
    Apparently it’s invalid for Humlum to make observatory comments on a decade of data (10 years) because it simply isn’t long enough…. but others are allowed to make far reaching comments about the climate using data in a 5 year timeframe….and:

    Those are the facts – your beliefs are another matter.

    Also Luke,
    Trying to globally average out the incidence of highly variable weather (like storms) ?
    Ummm….I know that it is possible to come up with a figure….but good luck with that one!
    It proves absolutely nothing USEFUL about the weather or the climate.
    It is, however, an interesting exercise in statistics.

  58. bazza July 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Were I to be shooting crap and an exceptional number of sixes kept coming up, would I a) crap out, b) get the dice checked, or c) play on and check the stats after another hundred rolls?

  59. toby July 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    check for loaded dice…or loaded data?

  60. Debbie July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    ROFL! 🙂
    Very clever Toby.
    I know you hate me asking questions….sorry.
    But was that you trying to justify why the 5 YEAR timeframe is now acceptable when commenting on climate statistical correlations and trends? Even when it is presented as a comparison to a 29 year timeframe?
    If it was….I would respectfully suggest you justify with evidence.
    An analogy with a crap game is ….well….. pretty crap really.
    You did say a few days ago that ‘even Cohers knows that 10 years is not long enough’.
    Maybe you might like to offer an acceptable, definitive timeframe that allows weather and weather wiggles to morph into climate… or…. does that just change according to something else perhaps?
    Just in case you decide to ask me my THOUGHTS…..I would say that using a 5 year timeframe and comparing it to data from a 29 year timeframe is simply NOT a statiscally valid exercise.
    Therefore unlike the extrapolation exercise on SLR….which at least followed a clearly stated methodology…this one would tempt me to borrow from Jen’s terminology:
    ‘pretty stupid’.

  61. bazza July 26, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    Deb, try and think about extremes as being a bit about weather. Keep working on your questions and comebacks- Toby would not mind if you used that one about “lies, damn lies etc” next time you want to rebut a stat. Then of course you could use the one about all the worlds temperature records being doctored like the dice .Loved your work in your review of the Climate of the Nation – full of insights to be sure. Happy to respond any time you ask a considered question that seeks to advance a discussion. Still waiting.

  62. Debbie July 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Your point was?

  63. toby July 26, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    Well the reality is that stats can be manipulated as both sides have shown to their detriment….it was an attempted joke as much as anything…thx for getting it Deb!
    It does not seem unreasonable to me to be somewhat sceptical about such a significant shift to extreme ( 3 sd’s…that is significant, but i am no stats expert) anomalies. We do know they have played around with station data and sites ( maybe for good reason….maybe not) but I would certainly wonder how big the error factor is in their data and if these anomalies lie within or outside these error factors?
    this point can be made in relation to a “global mean” as well in that the errorbar in creating this “mean” from memory is +-2f….but we are talking about a warming of 1.5f……in other words the data is telling us nothing?
    I still think the fact that your warm period is quite considerably warmer than the cool base period means it is highly likely that there will be higher highs….and potentially much higher highs from a known cool period… you say this is weather…..and over 5 years that is what you are talking about…but maybe over 30 years you can talk about climate… does the 1915-45 warm period relate to your 2006-11 period..or better still the 1980-2010 period so that we are comparing similar climatic time frames?……if the area suffering from extreme heat anomalies is lower then it would potentially support many of our comments here…if not it would support you?

    Rob’s point at 10.31 makes some interesting responses to you I thought?

  64. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 7:46 am #

    BTW Bazza,
    I have no idea what you are ‘still waiting’ for.
    But I am definitely still waiting for you to
    a) keep your deal and
    b) please answer my question/s re the Climate4You work.
    I am still finding most of what you write to be about criticising others rather than an attempt to advance a discussion.

  65. bazza July 27, 2012 at 8:42 am #

    Deb, check out the quadratic, check out how many times he mentions the recent run of La Ninas, check out if he has form as unbiased commentator. Check out Norwegian dependency on oil revenue. Dont worry about the data – it comes from reliable sources. His SLR extrap. was seen by you and Jen as OTT – it only takes one. His collection of graphs simply panders to cherry pickers and seduces the innocent.

  66. toby July 27, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    Bazza I found only one comment that you can be referring to on climate of a nation and it related to a a very unscientific statement from our friend Luke;
    “No there’s only one possible cause for recent warming unless you believe in fairies “
    To which I suggested it is well known that the following have also contributed in varying degrees;
    sun, land clearing, land use, urban heat effect.
    and that a 1 % change in cloud cover is also potentially sufficient to have caused the warming.

    truth hurts huh?

    And you say above “His SLR extrap. was seen by you and Jen as OTT – it only takes one.”…so one use of poor stats/ data and that is enough to dismiss everything……and yet you are happy to quote the likes of hansen and mann, IPCC and any other well known warmist with a media profile….heaven help us!! you hypocrite!!!!

  67. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    So Bazza,
    In the interest of discussing the evidence without the rest can I just paraphrase that answer to make sure we are on the same page? Please correct me if I have missed something.
    You think the data is perfectly fine but you are not fine with the way the data has been presented?
    So, you do have an objection to the methodology in relation to a focus (or lack of) on recent La Ninas and/or quadratics?
    You also seem to have a question about motives and Nationality? I question the relevance of that.
    I think the fact that I can’t see a useful/ valuable reason for the SLR projection doesn’t mean that the whole report should be dismissed, but you seem to think it should?
    So if those are correct ‘assumptions’, can you now please explain the fault in the methodology in relation to the stated context (or terms of reference if you prefer that terminology) in this Climate4You update?
    I’m not claiming that this report is anything other than what it is, which is an update of previous modelling, plus a few extrapolations based on clearly outlined methods.
    I am truly interested to know why you obviously strongly object to what is reported based on evidence.
    The cherry picking accusation is a total furphy (IMHO) if we are discussing statistical analysis.
    That is actually what all stat analysis does by its very nature, especially in projective work.
    That is paricularly true if we are trying to extrapolate trends and patterns in such an uncooperative beast that we call weather and/or climate.
    What needs to be clear is the methodology and the terms of reference.
    (IMHO) as always.

  68. Luke July 28, 2012 at 8:26 am #

    “Truth hurts” exclaims Toby – so does drongoism

    sun – nope
    land clearing, land use – nope – in general makes the surface brighter – cooler
    UHI – nope – laternative lines of evidence – satellite, ocean, BEST etc

    Cloud cover – – net cooling!?

    Aerosols is your best bet for major change and you left it out – partially explains hiatus in warming

  69. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    Did you actually read that Joel Norris paper that you have linked?
    I cannot see how it has disproved what Toby pointed out.
    In particular the cloud cover point.
    I don’t have any objection to this report as far as its ‘terms of reference’ are concerned, nor do I object ‘in principle’ to the MOST of methods that are clearly outlined.
    I draw your attention to pp 10 – 33 and particularly the conclusions on page 33.
    How does his observations differ from Toby’s basic point?
    Then look from pp 34- 60.
    I do question the validity/purpose of using different timeframes (which will radically alter ranges in stats)….but, for the purpose of this particular comment, will let that slide at the moment.
    The most important pages to note are his conclusions on pp59-60.
    How do these conclusions differ to Toby’s point?
    I will particularly note dot points 4 and 5 in the Norris paper pp 59-60.
    + there is not yet enough information available to attribute cloud trends to AGW
    + multidecadal reliable observations of the upper atmosphere over the ocean are not available.
    I also draw your attention to the number of times that Norris points out that the uncertainties outweigh any ‘settled’ answering of his opening questions.

    The question I am asking YOU is: in what way has this particular report DISPROVED Toby’s point?
    Because you have used it to claim this:

    sun – nope
    land clearing, land use – nope – in general makes the surface brighter – cooler
    UHI – nope – laternative lines of evidence – satellite, ocean, BEST etc
    Cloud cover… cooling!?
    If I sent Norris your comment…do you think he would agree with you that his report disproves Toby’s point?
    I will also note that Toby did not comment on Aerosols….but they are discussed in this report….but not relevant to your treatment of Toby’s argument.
    His point was basically….the ‘other’ variables have much more likelihood of affecting temp than AGW.
    He also DID NOT say a 1% INCREASE in cloud cover….he said a 1% CHANGE!

  70. Luke July 28, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Did you read the conclusion Debs – cloud cover since 1952 a net cooling effect. JEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !

    Debs if you spent more time doing a modicum of elementary reading instead of opining out of your butt here you would know that aerosols are currently thought to be a major cause in the slow down in warming.

    Something about best bets and ask what the current practitioners think first – as a minimum courtesy.

  71. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    ZZZZZZZZZZZ indeed Luke.
    So a 1% CHANGE in cloud cover either up or down for WHATEVER REASON?
    Your aerosols point is completely irrelevant in the context of your dismissal of Toby’s point.
    Just so we get this straight however.
    Would a 1% CHANGE up or down in cloud cover (disregarding the rest of the ‘others’ ) outweigh the statistical significance of what is THOUGHT to be the influence of areosols?
    Which is relevant to Toby’s point.

  72. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    And further Luke,
    I was very, very careful to point out that I do NOT object to Norris’ work.
    I objected strongly to the way YOU chose to use it.
    He was careful to point out his terms of reference and his methods.
    There is nothing in there that DISPROVES what Toby pointed out.

  73. bazza July 28, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    I have been moderated out, like was it Groucho said he would not want to join a club that would accept him ! I would have asked Debbie for the meaning of: “The cherry picking accusation is a total furphy (IMHO) if we are discussing statistical analysis. That is actually what all stat analysis does by its very nature, especially in projective work.”
    Now I know.

  74. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    I am not sure I have interpreted your question correctly or even if there is any point in my attempt to answer it…..but here goes.
    I also qualified, very importantly:
    That is paricularly true if we are trying to extrapolate trends and patterns in such an uncooperative beast that we call weather and/or climate.
    IMHO Bazza,
    AND as an over riding qualifier I accept absolutely that what some would call ‘both sides’ have continually accused the other of ‘cherrypicking’….I actually agree that cherrypicking occurs (on both sides) but that in and of itself, it is NOT a valid complaint.
    Statistical analysis, especially projective work, is primarily an attempt to look for trends and patterns (or I guess in the work we’re discussing the terminology is better known as a ‘signal’) and use these calculations as a ‘tool’ to help us understand the world around us and also an attempt to help us make informed decisions about the benefits/disadvantages of ‘adjusting’ any inputs.
    What we attempt to do is model or extrapolate different ‘assumptions’ about various inputs that I guess can be (very) simply described as …..if everything else remains ‘equal’ or ‘basically unchanged’, what is the likely influence on the whole of a change in factor X?
    In economic projective modelling this can be a very useful exercise.
    It is also very useful in modelling ‘outcomes’ in numerous other professions….including climate science of course.
    In my personal business (Agriculture) we can easily see the advantages of using such a tool.
    We can factor in a ‘range’ of prices for our various commodities….a ‘range’ of different water allocations in relation to our planting windows…..a range of weather forecasts and rainfall forecasts….a range of varying prices in our input costs….and that can become ever more intricate and complicated and it has also become even ‘higher powered’ with new technologies and programming.
    All we then have to do is change one of those ‘inputs’ in those models to examine how that particular change could affect the whole picture.
    A simple example in my business would be to change the market price of wheat.
    If nothing else changes, that particular change either up or down will have a demonstrable effect on the whole business model.
    However….that one particular answer is ‘assuming’ that other equally important or even more significant variables like yield, the price of fertiliser/fuel, water availability, summer rainfall events, R&M costs, the market prices of the many other commodities we produce, interest rates, water quality etc etc etc etc ad infinitum ….will remain basically unchanged.
    That’s why I think the ‘cherrypicking’ argument….no matter what ‘side’ or what our ‘belief’ may be… is really a bit of a furphy.
    If we’re trying to focus on the significance of one ‘input’ then of course that input is the one we ‘adjust’ in the modelling.
    That can also be described as ‘cherrypicking’.
    The rest of my POV about the AGW debate is based more on the fact that this type of work is called ‘science’ and that it is ‘settled’ and that it can be used effectively as a primary decision making tool.
    I do not believe that to be the case and I have seen no evidence in the form of ‘measureable outcomes or results’ that would cause me to re evaluate.
    To me….that particular mindset/standpoint and the huge media/political argument it has created…. is part of the problem rather than part of of any practical solution.

  75. bazza July 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Debbie, I asked about your claim “The cherry picking accusation is a total furphy (IMHO) if we are discussing statistical analysis. That is actually what all stat analysis does by its very nature, especially in projective work.” You tried to justify it, I think, using your experience with what-if changes to budgets that excude uncertainty as you would expect. There is absolutely zero relevance to statistical inference .

  76. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Is that right Bazza?
    Zero relevance?
    To what in particular?
    Projective modelling?….or is it now ‘statistical inference’ ?
    I thought you wanted an explanation (or the meaning) of my comment about ‘cherry picking’ being bit of a furphy when we discuss projective modelling? (summarised version of original comment)
    I admit I was a bit unclear about what you asked….maybe you might try to ask questions in a less obtuse manner and minus the veiled, smarmy, personal insults?
    BTW…I don’t know why you got moderated as I didn’t see the comment….but I can easily guess on the evidence of past performance.
    But, nonetheless, as a further comment on your comments.
    (IMHO) as always….
    It doesn’t matter whether it’s to do with budgets or climate or weather or education or health or mining or insurance or hydrology or whatever else you care to name …’s still essentially a ‘what if’ exercise and it does exclude variability (or uncertainty as used by you) of other changes in other inputs as it examines the ‘what if’ proposition or looks for a particular ‘signal’.
    Are you now claiming that AGW projective modelling is NOT a ‘what if’ exercise that excludes uncertainties?
    You see Bazza….in principle I don’t have a problem with that….my very, very strong objection is the highly inappropriate political hijacking of this work….including the claims that it is ‘science’, that it is ‘settled’ and that it is a primary policy making tool that we should just ‘trust’ because it is all about ‘higher level principles’ or ‘the greatest moral challenge of out time’ or ‘ to protect future generations’ or ‘to mitigate the fact that climate changes’ or to protect us from ‘immiment catastrophic risk’ or ‘to protect the environment’ or to stop people getting cranky in traffic jams or to manage bush fire risk or the risk of houses falling into the ocean next century sometime or etc etc etc….
    That’s why I have no problem in principle with the Climate4You work or the Joel Norris work that Luke linked or Jen and Abbot’s paper and numerous others.
    They’re all fine if they clearly state the context and have a clearly stated methodolgy….even the majority of the AGW modelling that I have seen is fine as a statistical exercise. (and I realise that there is an exponential increase of such work….mainly because of aforementioned objection and one single person has little hope of reading a significant % of that!)
    But…I’m confident this comment is further proof of some type of personality fault on my part Bazza and that I’m doomed in some manner that I either simply don’t understand or that I don’t care enough about.

  77. toby July 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    You were moderated out, bazza?..what here by Jen?

    is that why we have not seen a response to most of the points raised here? has the 1980-2010 period been compared with a similar warm period?
    is it not true to suggest your 5 year time frame is “weather” and you are comparing it to climate of a 30 year period?

    if watty is correct your anomalies will be a function of loaded data……

Website by 46digital