Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

Interesting stuff.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+002

In article 748636c5-621e-4c4f-b2ef-
, says...


Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?


My God! It's almost as big as the rise at the end of last month! And
almost as big as the fall at the start of year!




--
Alan LeHun

On Feb 22, 11:18*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 748636c5-621e-4c4f-b2ef-
, says...

Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

My God! It's almost as big as the rise at the end of last month! And
almost as big as the fall at the start of year!

--
Alan LeHun

I agree Alan, Such large swings and AGW roundabouts.

Lawrence13 wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:18 pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 748636c5-621e-4c4f-b2ef-
,
says...

Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

My God! It's almost as big as the rise at the end of last month! And
almost as big as the fall at the start of year!

--
Alan LeHun

I agree Alan, Such large swings and AGW roundabouts.

How come you've not mentioned this for a while?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Feb 22, 11:18*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 748636c5-621e-4c4f-b2ef-
, says...

Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

My God! It's almost as big as the rise at the end of last month! And
almost as big as the fall at the start of year!

--
Alan LeHun



Larry never gets it when, as soon as he cherry picks a fall, those
graph temperatures always head back upwards again. Then, of course,
silence, until the next downtick (which always happens).

Col's point illlustrates that perfectly. This is what cliate deniers
do, as they don't have the science to back their ideas. All they have
are temporary colder conditions. This time at 14,000' from data that
is prone to large fluctuations.

It's daft, but it keeps him interested, I suppose and such things
allow deniers to convince themselves that what they need to happen, to
sustain their agendas, may be happening.

In message
,
Lawrence13 writes
On Feb 22, 11:18*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 748636c5-621e-4c4f-b2ef-
, says...

Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

My God! It's almost as big as the rise at the end of last month! And
almost as big as the fall at the start of year!

--
Alan LeHun

I agree Alan, Such large swings and AGW roundabouts.

You see why I suggested that it's appropriate to consider you a weather
denier. You're taking changes in the weather, and presenting them as
changes in climate (or at least allowing them to be interpreted as so
presented).

Should we instead consider you a global warming alarmist* offering an
(alleged) increased magnitude of weather fluctuations as a consequence
of global warming?

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

Interesting stuff.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+002

It's interesting, but I'm unclear what, if anything, changes at 14,000ft
signify for those of us living at the surface. Could the changes be
reflecting changes in the average height of the tropopause, or is
14,000ft too low for that? It's interesting that there seems to have
been something of an inverse correlation in recent weeks between western
Europe surface temperatures and global mean temperatures at 14,000ft,
but I imagine that that is probably no more than a coincidence. (Unless
upper troposphere temperatures are linked to stratosphere temperatures,
and a SSW can percolate downwards?)
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
You see why I suggested that it's appropriate to consider you a
weather denier.

Please call him an AGW denier instead. I'm sure that Lawrence doesn't
deny that weather occurs. And I think that someone else called him a
"climate denier", to which term I have the same objection. I don't think
that I'm being over-pedantic. If we use words too loosely, people aren't
going to be clear what we mean.
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

On 23/02/2012 10:35, John Hall wrote:
In article
,
writes:
Is there any precedence of such a large fall over the whole eleven
year data period?

Interesting stuff.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...?amsutemps+002

It's interesting, but I'm unclear what, if anything, changes at 14,000ft
signify for those of us living at the surface. Could the changes be
reflecting changes in the average height of the tropopause, or is

The transition between the lumpy variation and flatlining is somewhere
around 50000ft or 15km. Global averages are not much use for predicting
local conditions though. Details over the UK would be interesting.

Incidentally now is the right time to look out for nacreous PSCs if they
are to be seen from the UK. Are there any online Lidar scans or
temperature profiles through the atmosphere over Scotland up to 30km?

14,000ft too low for that? It's interesting that there seems to have
been something of an inverse correlation in recent weeks between western
Europe surface temperatures and global mean temperatures at 14,000ft,
but I imagine that that is probably no more than a coincidence. (Unless
upper troposphere temperatures are linked to stratosphere temperatures,
and a SSW can percolate downwards?)

It is amazing what straws AGW deniers will clutch at. The average over
the past couple of months is pretty close to what is expected!

You have to admire the selective reporting that totally ignores the even
larger temperature rise just preceding this recent drop.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

John Hall scrive:

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
You see why I suggested that it's appropriate to consider you a weather
denier.

Please call him an AGW denier instead. I'm sure that Lawrence doesn't
deny that weather occurs.

Let us also be clear that an AGW denier is not necessarily also a GW
denier. It may simply be the 'A' part that they object to.
Personally, I am more concerned about AC ... absolute certainty. A very
worrying trend.


--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

buchan-meteo.org.uk