Sheaf Saint

OK GM, I made the mistake of looking at the difference in the anomaly figure (from around -0.25 to around 0.15 which is 0.4). However that does not detract from the fact that the graphs still show a rise in temperatures which contradicts your claim of no warming for the last 20 years. I would still like to see the data you are basing this assertion on please. I would also still be interested to read you response to the question of whether or not the observed data figures in the graphs are within the predicted range of the models. As for your updated graphs, if I was to submit an assignment with a 'line of best fit' (Ha!) that was as far off as yours, my tutor would return it to me and order me to do it again.

And if you care to actually look properly at the graphs, instead of seeing only what you want to see, you will notice that the temperature anomaly in all of them is greater than 0.1C. The first two, which show data up to last year, actually points to an increase of around 0.4C. Which kind of p*sses on your claim of a 20-year halt in warming doesn't it?

Not really. Interpreting data from graphs is something that is taught in GCSE science. It is you that seems to be struggling with it in this case. Look again at those graphs you posted and please give me a simple yes or no to the question: is the black line of observed temperature data within the range of predictions?

Below most of them, but consistent with some of them. They can't all be correct can they. Yes your graphs show the black line of observed temperatures as being towards the very lower end of the predicted range, but in all three it is still within the predicted range. Oh it's twenty years now is it? Here was me thinking the entire skeptic argument was based on the notion of no warming since 1998 (which is demonstrably false anyway) but now you reckon there has been no warming now since 1994? Please show us the data which support this.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/09/global-warming-humans-not-sun?CMP=fb_us&commentpage=1 I won't post the whole article, as no doubt there will be some who have already decided that because it is in the Guardian, it must be leftist claptrap and won't bother reading past the first paragraph. Suffice to say it cites three recently published papers which reinforce the IPCC claim of 95% probability that climate change is a result of human activity. The first paper used two extremes of natural variability in their models and states "...we investigate two extreme cases of the plausible temporal structures of the internal variability, and we find that the anthropogenic signal is robust and significant." The second paper presents the findings of a study of the sun's influence on climate variability over the last millennium. It states that the sun is only likely to have caused around 15% of the observed warming over the last 300 years, and concludes "Over the twentieth century, anthropogenic forcings dominate with GHGs (Greenhouse Gases) the largest forcing, offset by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols and land use changes" The third paper looks at the pattern of cloud formation due to increased levels of water vapour in the atmosphere, and rebukes the contrarian claim that increased cloud cover would reflect more heat away from the atmosphere and offset the warming effect of known positive feedbacks that are accelerating climate change. You can view an interview with one of the authors

I didn't really get hold of much new music in 2013 (something I must rectify this year) but my favourite release was probably To Dust by Alice Russell.

Wow. Is this what passes for journalism these days? That's just a load of absolute drivel written by somebody who clearly has no knowledge of the facts.

And despite claiming to have a degree in chemistry, he refers to carbon dioxide as CO2 instead of CO2. I smell a rat

Soy production is a large cause, but not the biggest cause. 91% of land deforested in the Amazon since 1970 is used for livestock pasture... http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/02/000090341_20040202130625/Rendered/PDF/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf So when you consider that tropical wet forest has a higher biomass per hectare than any other type of ecosystem, and that vast areas of tropical wet forest (91% of an estimated 60 million hectares by 2001 in Brazil alone) are being cleared and replaced with grass, do you not imagine that is going to have some effect on the carbon cycle?

You say that, but the giant earth-movers and chainsaws burn hydrocarbons for fuel, so it can be truly said that the process of deforestation does contribute to CO2 emissions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nut-say-new-year-survey-is-damning-indictment-against-michael-gove-9034929.html

Bi-o-mass noun 1. Ecology . the amount of living matter in a given habitat, expressed either as the weight of organisms per unit area or as the volume of organisms per unit volume of habitat. So cutting down vast areas of rainforest and replacing it with grazing land does not constitute removal of biomass then, no?

Seriously? You claim to have a background in chemistry and yet you can't see the quite obvious link between the removal of biomass and the subsequent weakened ability of the remaining biomass to absorb atmospheric CO2? Seriously???

What has happened to our pressing game? I know we have had a few enforced personnel changes recently but I've seen no sign of the tactic that was working so well for us early in the season. Our forwards got nothing today because Chelsea completely bossed the midfield after Cork went off. I'm really beginning to wonder about MO's subs lately. They always seem to have a negative effect on the team rather than a positive one.

For f***s sake this is embarrassing. We can't even get near the ball and every time we do we just give it straight back to them. That was an absolute abortion of an attempted pass from Gaston who has been completely anonymous in the 2nd half (along with all our other attacking players before anybody accuses me of scapegoating)

Little point in bringing on an attacking player if you are sacrificing your ability to win the ball in midfield to feed the ball to them.

True. But I am starting to question the wisdom of Pochettino's substitutions recently. Twice in the last two games he has taken Cork off when he has been playing well, and we lose the midfield. As I type, once again we let them through with too much ease and they score again.

Can't hurt I suppose...

When is Wanyama back? We so badly miss him at the moment.

The subs are the difference. They can bring on that kind of quality, and we have kids on our bench.

Hhmmmm. Taking Cork off was probably a mistake.

Can't wait to hear Moron-io try and defend that one.

Just got in and finding a stream. How was the first half?

Given Germany's track record when it comes to losing patience with migrant ethnic communities, I'm not sure that is something we should be wishing for.