nauseus

I suppose a baseless accusation could be a type of opinion.

Very dramatic.

Yup. A complete load of polls.

Here we go.

Don't be daft.

Thanks. I guess we can do without the trend line. Early 1990's sudden warming spike was Pinatubo.

Why not split the trend line into pre and post 1996? Even a donkey might see something.

I already wrote: so that overall cooling is much less than pre Y2K. Enough.

Oh I see! Dictation!

Well that's just fine. Of course we are different. Sometimes I won't link if others haven't and I don't see why I should. The same applies to those who interrupt the party late (i.e. yourself) but with no similar criticism of the party I was responding to, who did not provide a link either. I see that as inconsistent on your part. But just for you: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/13/jcli-d-15-0629.1.xml If you go to the final para of section 1 the first sentence reads: "The temperature of the stratosphere has decreased over the last several decades because of the combined effects of increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) and changes in stratospheric ozone". And if you go to the final para of section 4 the first sentence reads: "Model simulations (e.g., Stolarski et al. 2010) suggest that stratospheric temperature changes will evolve in response to changing ozone trends". I have tried to suggest that the recent, relative, warming effect due to ozone recovery is shown in a trend change, so that overall cooling is much less than pre Y2K. Yes, my original wording was poor and could be seen as misleading, but that was not intentional.

You mean that after all this carp you don't know?

Three links, same chart.

Like I said before, the exchange you broke into began with a link-less post. So save your faux outrage for that poster.

I can, but like I said, I can't be bothered.

Is this supposed to be news?

Strange. No reference or name for this tidal station near to Pattaya (wherever it is) and any relevant source data for it. Also no mention of several relatively recent but significant Pattaya beach remedial works due local storms overwhelming the drainage system from time-to-time, with the consequent flood waters running as rivers on to the beach to erode and ruin it. The reason for any shoreline "retreat" is probably mainly because there is less material (sand) due to erosion, despite all of the replacement sand brought in. This quoted Pattaya sea-level rise of 14.2mm/y is a lot, and double that quoted down south, so I see it as questionable. This rate is also more than double the average value (6.5mm/y) for Thailand that the same authors cite in a "related" paper linked below. In it they do mention the beach "nurturing" (bringing in a bunch of sand/partial replacement for Pattaya) but this paper was submitted 2 years later. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/6/588 Even stranger!

The response to which you jumped on was to someone else - he didn't provide any links so I couldn't be bothered either.

A rare slip. But you're right. He should never have let you back in.

Link

Nonsense back at ya. The O3 layer has greatly recovered since 2000, so that driver of stratospheric cooling has weakened correspondingly. That is what I was talking about.

Saying that a trend reversal has been prompted does not mean that the process is complete. You forever twist words to suit yourself. Go away.

As usual, you interfere without "getting" the history of the arguments of others. If you go back and carefully read what I have said, you will see that I am not disputing the overall cooling in the stratosphere.

No. Your words. Not mine.

Not if these trials are really being conducted to prove guilt, it won't.

You didn't even read it properly, did you? Try again. Now you've modified your question too! You are a boring time-waster with trollistic leanings. TGIF