Warming may bring mass extinctions: study

No you are too easy.

The problem is you confuse science with "the science" which is BS propaganda.

Weather stations have been in Greenland a long long time.

2 land stations in southern Greenland and 3 SST (sea surface temperature monitors.

Their records indicate 1941 was the hottest Greenland got after the LIA....and has been cooling since at a fairly regular rate......Eric's farm Brathihilde on Eriksfyord opposite Narnansuuq is still permafrost----a farm that grew barley, supported sheep horse and cattle from 1000 AD to about 1300AD.

The Greenland Gore didn't tell you about

Here's what I'm hearing from I don't know how many sources in the recent months - "There's been no warming since 1998".

Here's what I'm seeing in the graphs below you tell me don't say that. A spike to 1998. After that I see nothing telling me it's ever gotten warmer than it was in 1998. In other words it's peaked and leveled off. Yes the lines go up, then they go down then they go up again, but they never indicate a warming from 1998.

But go ahead tell me I don't see what my eyes tell me they see. Tell me black is white. Oh wait, I just looked into my crystal ball. Now we're going to argue about what the words mean when they say "no warming since 1998" right.

In fact here's the graph the warmers used to love to post, except now it goes past 2001. It used to just rise magically towards some imaginary Al Gore catastrophe level. Unless I'm blind, it now also shows temperatures starting to level off.

And again genius. It isn't my graph. It's one from Zipperhead's link. And again, I'll tell you why I posted it.

Even though it's a selected graph to make a pro-AGW point it doesn't show what they want it to.

As was pointed out it's an anomaly graph. I'm not a graph expert, but this is the way I understand it. They take global mean highs, then global mean lows, and somehow average an arc to form curves.

This practice led to this bullshit graph I was seeing Alarmists post as recent as a few weeks ago. It ended in 2001. and looked something like this (except you only used to see the red line).

OK so here's what I see there. The line rises to 2001, and from what's presented would appear to keep rising somewhere off-graph at Al Gore catastrophic temperatures. The gap between high and low is much greater in 1998 than it is in the 2005 range. The line of the curve used however shows an arc complimentary to global warmers eyes. Something they don't call attention to however is the high of 1998 is a peak never again reached.

That was what they were presenting a few weeks ago. As they got challenged by more and more by reference to the fact there's been no warming since 1998 we started to see this one.

Here we enter "pay no attention to the man behind the screen" territory. Notice at the end even with the alarmist selected graph, temperatures start to level off. Of course you don't. I'll show it to you close up, and you'll still say it isn't there.

Here's the end of the line the way they used to show it

Here's the way they show it now

The temperatures are leveling off.

Wanna see it even clearer? Here's one from Wikipedia which they say comes from "Climate Research Unit" data, "developed in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met". It shows Northern, Southern and Global anomalies.

The temperatures are leveling off. In fact in the South they're dropping. Also even with these contrived arcs if you do a little detective work on the first 2 graphs you'll see there has been no warming since the 1998 peak.

Now to Zip. I remember you were having a 5 page argument with yourself about averages. I have no idea if it presented anything like a point. I know you'd pop in from time to time and to inform me you were winning your argument. I ignored it. It had nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was has there been warming since 1998. I was busy searching for pictures explaining the actual scientific data. I wanted them in a form even you would understand. I see now that's easier said than done. Did I go to skeptic sites. Of course. That's were they keep the information for the average guy. It still originates at research centers as you would have seen had you read the attached URL's, or read the descriptions from the posted links. As usual with the Gorons, they only see what they want to see. Nevertheless the data doesn't stop being data just because you don't like the site that posts it.

N_Fiddledog ,

If you look at those graphs in the region of the obvious upward trend, there's three or four points at which the graphs "level off", and several regions at which they start to decline - after which they continue to rise as per the upward trend.

You're simply ignoring the overall increase and looking at two or three years as proof of a new trend. There's no conclusive evidence from those few silly little pieces of data you snipped from the graphs and claimed were proof that temperatures were "leveling off".

NO, no, no. See this is what happens when people come into the middle of a discussion and think they understand what's going on.

I'll be quite happy to discuss trends with you, after the main point has been established. You might even be surprised to find me agreeing on some of what you say. However this began, because Zip refused to acknowledge a simple black and white fact. There's been no warming since the 1998 peak.

If you guys would stop calling black white on that one question, we'd be discussing trends, and you'd have an actual point, some of which I'd have to concede.

I understand what's going on - I understand your understanding of interpretting data is pedestrian.

1998 was exceptionally warm- the increase in temperatures is well above the expected trend.

You can't count that as proof that the trend isn't occuring - if you didn't include 1998 at all, the temperatures are still increasing.

Again, one year is not suffiecient to claim the trend has peaked and is now declining. The variability between subsequent years is greater than the "leveling off" you claim to see.