And Greenland has been slowly cooling for the last 10 years:
A bit more here: "While we were celebrating our Independence Day on
July 4th, Summit Station in Greenland may have experienced the coldest
July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33°C
I thought the first was a spoof, fake news, until I came across the
It'll be interesting to see what this winter brings in terms of ice
That would only be true in a closed thermal system, which the Earth
isn't. Heat enters the system from the sun, and some of it is
re-radiated back out into space at different wavelengths. And heat
doesn't move 'up hill', as it were. The arctic isn't going to lose
heat to the tropics.
This isn't a temperature difference its an actual temperature.
If one zone got really hot it wouldn't cool the other.
Anyway its only weather the same as the extra hot days are only weather.
Climate is not weather.
There is always a worry of cherry picking in these kinds of reports.
Locations, start dates and end dates are searched for and selected to
give an appearance of the desired effect. I kind of expect that, but
this report caught my eye
What exactly does this mean: "For the most recent 10 years (2005 to
2015), *apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010*, mean annual
temperatures .. exhibit a slightly decreasing trend."?
Has cheery picking started to delete unwanted points from the middle of
the data set too? Would this cooling trend exist if 2010 were included.
Unless you can clear this up you'll have to forgive my suspicion that
the people who suggest that they can tell the future from reading the
tea leaves are misrepresenting the way the tea leaves look.
Oh, quite. But if you take that view, you have to apply it to all the
short-term global temperature changes recorded over the last century
and a half. But both sides of the global warming argument use
short-term changes to support their particular case. For example it's
generally accepted that the Earth cooled from 1880 to 1910, warmed
from 1910 to 1945, cooled slightly from 1945 to 1975, warmed from 1975
to 2000, and has been more-or-less steady from then on, with the
exception of a sharp spike due to El Nino last year, from which the
global temperatures are rapidly recovering (recent global temperatures
were no higher than they were in 2002). Up and down like a fiddler's
elbow. But explanations are advanced for all of them, although you
would argue that highlighting those individual periods is cherry
picking. From a purely statistical POV you're may be right.
I suspect it was arguments like these that led to the questions in
Parliament a few years ago as to whether it was statistically
justifiable to fit anything other than a straight line to the data
I've referred to. I don't have a reference, but I suspect Lord
Monckton was involved, a vocal climate sceptic and no mean
mathematician, AIUI. The Met Office gave a reply:
http://tinyurl.com/y9mzzz55 You will no doubt understand it better
The author of the original article on Arctic temperatures, Kobashi, is
in the department of Climate and Environmental Physics at the
University of Bern, Switzerland, working on the Greenland Temperature
Project, so no mere amateur.
He is responsible for the phrase "For the most recent 10 years (2005
to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual
temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in
accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling", although I
don't think he was responsible for adding straight line.
Having just re-read Nick's last sentence ("you'll have to forgive my
suspicion that the people who suggest that they can tell the future
from reading the tea leaves are misrepresenting the way the tea leaves
look"), it certainly applies to the advocates of AGW.
Excellent post, very much aligned with my views. One of the benefits of
advancing age is that it gives you a longer perspective. In the
generally miserable summers of the 1950's and 60's I was regularly told
by a succession of Great Aunts how much better the summers were in the
Age also gives one a better perspective on wars, and how little our
leaders seem to learn even from comparatively recent history.
Back in the 70s when rag'n'bone men were still not uncommon, tips were
fairly unregulated and tradesmen could transport their own waste,
onwards into the 90s when some councils put skips all over the place
every six months for general us, I recall sod all fly tipping.
Now it's regulated to death, I see rubbish everywhere.
Interesting POV and to an extent I agree with you, OTOH a lot of it
is the visibility of modern materials coupled with that they have
hardly any value to make collecting them worthwhile.
We had three old treadle sewing machines dumped in one of our farm
gateways circa 1967 , the machines were too damaged to do much about
but the iron frames have done good service as garden table legs . In
1970 on a stay with rellies in London a neighbour obtained the then
unusual item of a metal detector , we went down to the River near
Barnes Bridge and promptly found an office telephone exchange in the
Mud, so fly tipping certainly happened even then.
We disposed a lot of our own rubbish from the farm and Dads building
business in a convenient small disused quarry on our land some of
which would be decidedly dodgy under modern rules. Old glass
accumulators from various radios ,asbestos ,old oil , a pile of live
303 rounds and ball round cartridges left over from a neighbours Home
Guard duties , a battered Morris Eight and god knows what all covered
over by a layer of soil as it became available.
The modern equivalent of the Rag and Boneman still exist mainly
driving around in battered Transit Pick ups collecting old domestic
white goods, what they are not interested in is the stuff that has no
value such many plastic based building materials or huge plastic
childrens garden toys which I see regularly flytipped and it's the
preponderance of plastic and cheap nasty disposable furniture that
makes flytipping stand out. The piles of steel cans and brick rubble
etc that was flytipped in decade past at least on the whole broke
down or settled into the ground after a few years.
Yes "recycling centres" (tips) are too fussy about what they will accept.
They check that you are from the right area (eg we live in Ryedale and can't
use tips in the York area - they ask for postcode and ID) and they charge
for some items (eg rubble/stones/plant pots/other ceramics) as £x per
sackful. Previously they restricted you to two sackfuls per month, so I just
took stuff to three separate tips! Then they stopped accepting it altogether
unless you paid - they actually expected you to advertise that you had some
waste rubble and see if anyone local wanted it - eg farmers for filling
potholes in their lanes. Expecting private individuals to do this, rather
than having a central authority that people apply to if they want rubble, is
I've seen a lot more rubble dumped in farm gateways and on verges since they
brought in that rule.
Six or seven years ago I dug our garden and found a lot of flat sandstone
"slabs" (naturally-occurring, not dumped by a previous owner) which I dug up
so the soil was reasonably stone-free. We piled them up in the corner of the
garden in case we wanted to make crazy paving etc. I took the smaller stones
to the tip in sacks (two per tip per month, spread around three tips) while
I still could, but we've been left with the huge pile (about 3x4x2 feet)
which we'd have to pay the tip to accept - so my wife has made a dry-stone
wall alongside a hedge where dogs sometimes get in from the footpath
alongside. I suppose what the council want us to do is either pay to take
the stuff to the tip or else pay to hire a skip. Being a Yorkshireman, my
philosophy is "only a fool pays for something if he can (legally) get it for
It's like with garden waste: they now charge to collect that, so I take it
to the tip. Having a brown garden waste bin wouldn't suit us anyway: when we
clear the garden we have far more that will fit in one wheely bin, and then
we have nothing for several months. It's not as if we've got space in the
garden to keep the excess so we can drip-feed it, one binful at a time, over
several weeks. So pointless to pay for a bin - better to take it to the tip
in our own cylindrical dustbins and trugs as and when we produce it. I can
fit far more in the car (three bins in place of the back seats and three
trugs in the boot and passenger footwell) for one journey than will fit in a
Thinking of council skips, I remember in the 1970s there was a skip in a
layby near us. The council emptied it each week. Whenever we went along,
people were picking over the contents and taking back things that other
people had dumped - on occasion they'd even approach you as you pulled up
and look in your boot "you throwing that away? can I have it?" so it would
go straight from our boot to theirs! We got a few things like an old table
(tatty and scratched but perfectly serviceable if you put a cloth over it).
I suppose we were Wombles. Which reminds me: there is a recycling centre
near us, on the outskirts of a very appropriately-named village: Wombleton.
case you think I'm making it up.
Why do you think those in the know distrust the AGW stuff when we know
data has been manipulated and discarded and hidden?
Would AGW exist if all the data had been used rather than the cherry
picked stuff feed into the models.
Would it exist if the models weren't specifically tailored to produce a
We have ample proof that they were when the global warming scare started
as none of the predictions they made have happened and they have had to
modify the models to match observations.
That is the scare stories were based on faulty models and/or data.
There is no reason to believe they aren't still faulty as they haven't
made a good one yet.
You won't convince me until they either:-
Produce a *verifiable* model that can predict the future and the past
using the real data and in public.
They can produce a model that actually physically models the Earth's
The later is unlikely as they don't understand it.
The former is unlikely as they still want to deny that they were wrong
in the first place.
You may decide to believe the lie if you want. I want evidence not some
bunch of "scientists" making claims they can't substantiate using
methods they can't tell you, using data they conveniently lose.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.