Are we heading for a mini ice age?

[pjclarke]

But such a graph would be meaningless. All climate scientists (and other scientists) work with anomalies. So the indices are constructed on that basis - that is the variance from a defined base point, and for good reasons. NASA set their 'zero' to be the average climatology from 1951-1980, for reasons to do with the quality of coverage over that timespan, all laid out in the documentation.

1.2C is about right. Probably in the region of 0.8C of that is greenhouse. The IPCC project around +0.2C / decade (though not in a straight line!) for the next few decades.

Cue the argument that such a 'small' change is nothing to worry about ...

[KimberleyChris]

No, it is something to worry about.

My only grouse is the dishonest way that the information is presented to the public. They feel that they have to amplify the rise on graphs, like the infamous 'hockey stick' and we will not understand it otherwise.

For example, I'm sure that in your Googling you have seen that world map, showing areas where the temperature has risen the most. These are all shown in garish scary RED.

There are some latitudes (admittedly few) where the temperature has actually fallen. But NO BLUE is allowed on the map.

[pjclarke]

Antarctica

NASA | Temperature Data: 1880-2011 - YouTube

[KimberleyChris]

"But such a graph would be meaningless. All climate scientists (and other scientists) work with anomalies. So the indices are constructed on that basis - that is the variance from a defined base point, and for good reasons".

And this is nonsense too.

To get the anomaly, the Scientists would need to take the temperature 'before' and then the temperature after', and subtract one from the other to give the anomaly.

What was the temperature?, what is the defined base-point?

I have measured the last graph that you copied on my (small) screen. If you make it reflect the true situation (i.e. minus the sun) the graph would be EIGHTEEN FEET tall with a hardly-discernable slight wiggle along the top edge.

CO2 versus temperature is obviously a very fine balance, and we don't really want to mess with it, but what we need is honest figures and not politically-massaged propoganda from the hypnotised and vested interests.

[pjclarke]

I have measured the last graph that you copied on my (small) screen. If you make it reflect the true situation (i.e. minus the sun) the graph would be EIGHTEEN FEET tall with a hardly-discernable slight wiggle along the top edge.

That sounds like an immensely useful graph ......

http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2...rrelation.html

[KimberleyChris]

"That sounds like an immensely honest graph"

Fixed that for you.

I will now count down from ten and click my fingers, then you will once again be capable of independant thought.

[EternalOptimist]

KC there is really no point arguing science with a watermelon.
This is just a vehicle for them to achieve their agenda. They will use the green movement, science, the tooth fairy, global cooling, sea levels, ice ages. anything.
It's just a vehicle for them.

green on the outside - red on the inside

[DodgyAgent]

"That sounds like an immensely honest graph"

Fixed that for you.

I will now count down from ten and click my fingers, then you will once again be capable of independant thought.

I am impressed by your use of logic KC

[KimberleyChris]

NASA | Temperature Data: 1880-2011 - YouTube

Also, a big 'up' to our American cousins, for getting a weather satellite into orbit 77 years before the Russians launched Sputnik 1, and for getting a man with a thermometer to the South pole 31 years before that despicable fraud Amundsen claimed to be the first.

[KimberleyChris]

I am impressed by your use of logic KC

Therefore wit = the highest form of sarcasm

Hope you're having a nice weekend over there in the blue corner. All the beast, KC.