It looks like the UK's carbon reduction goals are going to help somebody else. How thoughtful of them.
"I said here!" is that the U.K. or the Philippines you move around so much (at least virtually) it's hard to tell.
As others have said this is very local and of course another word-press document of who knows what origin, and you have the cheek to claim you don't trust models, but will trust any old nonsense in word-press or C3.
Even though this is local and just Sep, it's hard not to notice that it in fact does show a warming trend, from the 1930's onward, you do understand what the increase in yellow and the decrease in blue means, don't you. I like the blogger pointing out the spike in temperature in 1729, very interesting
For other readers who might think this shows something, kano obviously wont care, but it has picked out just the month of September, probably because they found one warm month in 1729. There are 11 other months in the year and I'm sure you could get 12 different graphs if you used each of them, especially considering the season variation in the U.K.
Now for what the blogger didn't tell you, yes the record does start in 1659 but was only a monthly series till 1772 from when it became a daily series (more accurate)
Why one month instead of the yearly averages, I think that is pretty obvious.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadce...
James: "Look at the AGW alarmists claim that 1 month was the hottest in 129 years."
Sorry James this is kano's link, he is no 'alarmist' I think you will find several alarmists here (including myself) telling him you can't pick out one month, he will of course have some lame comeback that with avoid that point.
Have you not yet learn that the central UK is not the entire globe? Have you not yet learned that a single month out of the year's temperature anomalies are not the average yearly temperature anomalies? Sunshine hours' website even cherry picked the month of the year, Kano. What are the annual temperature anomalies for the same region? The following link is on the same website that you linked - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadce... . How foolish would I look if I only showed the warmest areas of a small region of the planet and then asked if this looked like global cooling or a pause in the warming? You would rightly call it cherry picking as I rightly call your given example cherry picking. You are capable of doing much better than this, Kano. Show some intellectual honesty.
Added****
"Can you see global warming here?" - Well, Kano, your question is a small hint that you are inquiring about GLOBAL warming. Did I misunderstand the question?
I see that Graphicconception, Mike L and Zippie62 have no understanding in what represents global climate either. I expect that from them.
Yes, and anyway it is very local and not global.
It always will be warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. See link. So as long as we only see those graphs the possibility that it is not man is kept hidden.
Central England is not the whole world.
You just answered your own question. We won't see global warming, or global anything, because it is not representative of global conditions.
Wow, one month in Central England was cool, I guess that proves that global warming was wrong.
It was really pointless taking all those temperature measurements from around the world, when a single small region would suffice.
You know that is just the month of September, right? So, what is it supposed to mean? Is there an Anthropogenic Global Mean September Warming (AGMSW) theory?
=======
kano ---
>>Where did I say it was representative of global conditions, I said here! <<
Maybe in the part of your question where you use the words "Global Warming."
======
Mike L --
>>I did not turn my heater off till April .<<
Why did you keep it a secret for so long? That's sure going to be hard for Al Gore, the IPCC, and all of those thousands of scientists to explain.
=====
edit --
>>Antarcticice. Nice graph, I can see some warming yes, but not what you would expect from climate-change <<
If you see "warming" then you have observed and described some "change." The question then turns to explaining the observation (i.e., How do you test whether what you see is not just "what you would expect" from "normal" variation?)
Look at the AGW alarmists claim that 1 month was the hottest in 129 years. Why is it that if a single month or single year that is above average in temperature is more than enough proof that AGW is real and mankind is evil yet when we have month or a year with below average temperatures we are told that it means nothing or it is caused by global warming. The US seen over 3000 record lows broke this past summer. Using libtard logic that means we're plummeting into an ice age.
Global average temperatures?
From your link : "... Sep 2013 was tied for 129th warmest out of 352 at 13.7C. The warmest September was 16.8C in 2006 ..."
If we really wanted to advertise for "Global Cooling" in that area, we could use the past 7 years to say that global average temperatures have dropped 2.1C since 2006.
:-)
Rookie - Global average temperatures are taken every month and currently the Aug 2013 measurement says we are 0.62C above the scientifically established "normal" temperature and is 0.28C below the preceding month (Jul 2013).
Peggie baby: Your "It was really pointless taking all those temperature measurements from around the world, when a single small region would suffice. "
Name the temperature sampling points please.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/hadcet-september-2013-only-128-years-were-warmer-2/
Warmest year they are insane . I did not turn my heater
off till April .
what part of GLOBAL is the UK?
