2013 was 4th warmest year in the satellite era
From University of Alabama, Hunstville.
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
December temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.27 C (about 0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Tropics: +0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.19 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.16 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.23 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.02 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Global map for December:
For the year:
Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2014:
2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.
Global average temperature
(Departures from 30-year norm, degrees C)
1. 1998 0.419
2. 2010 0.398
3. 2005 0.260
4. 2013 0.236
5. 2002 0.218
6. 2009 0.209
7. 2007 0.204
8. 2003 0.187
9. 2006 0.186
10. 2012 0.170
11. 2011 0.130
12. 2004 0.108
13. 2001 0.107
14. 1991 0.020
15. 1987 0.013
16. 1995 0.013
17. 1988 0.012
18. 1980 -0.008
19. 2008 -0.009
21. 1981 -0.045
22. 1997 -0.049
24. 1983 -0.061
25. 2000 -0.061
26. 1996 -0.076
27. 1994 -0.108
29. 1989 -0.207
31. 1993 -0.245
34. 1985 -0.309
Compared to seasonal norms, in December the warmest area on the globe was the northeastern Pacific Ocean, where the average temperature for the month was 4.91 C (about 8.8 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms. The coolest area was in central Manitoba, near Lake Winnipeg, where temperatures in the troposphere were 5.37 C (almost 9.7 degrees F) cooler than seasonal norms.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
As part of an ongoing joint project between UA Huntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
Dr. Roy Spencer’s report:
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2013 is +0.27 deg. C, up from +0.19 deg. C in November (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 12 months are:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2013 01 +0.496 +0.512 +0.481 +0.387
2013 02 +0.203 +0.372 +0.033 +0.195
2013 03 +0.200 +0.333 +0.067 +0.243
2013 04 +0.114 +0.128 +0.101 +0.165
2013 05 +0.082 +0.180 -0.015 +0.112
2013 06 +0.295 +0.335 +0.255 +0.220
2013 07 +0.173 +0.134 +0.211 +0.074
2013 08 +0.158 +0.111 +0.206 +0.009
2013 09 +0.365 +0.339 +0.390 +0.189
2013 10 +0.290 +0.331 +0.250 +0.031
2013 11 +0.193 +0.160 +0.226 +0.020
2013 12 +0.265 +0.273 +0.257 +0.057
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 11:19 am
“I want to find a skeptic who believes that the warming have stopped to bet with.”
Can’t oblige then as I m not a sceptic, purely an observer of the data available so far.
Care to elucidate how you see the below series extending in time?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/mean:84/mean:70/mean:58
http://snag.gy/iychw.jpg
Is it onwards and upwards, level out for a time or down from here? And why?
Splice –
I am looking for a answer in BTUs.
‘
If you put x amount of BTUs into the system and the CO2 absorbs .01x, the CO2 has to return .01x BTUs back into system.
Right?
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 11:31 am
@Matt G
No – you just don’t understant how sum of signal and noise behaves when signal goes up and noise goes down. One of simptioms of such a situation you could see below:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/f
I understand very well thanks. and the noise you are talking about is really the warming blip that occurred for less than 20 years.. This warming blip was mainly caused by solar fueled El Ninos that jumped global temperatures to different levels. Most of the warming during this period occurred in just 2 steps. (2 strong El Ninos)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend
Where the extra energy come from? Lowering of global cloud levels.
What happens to the noise during this warming period when adjusted for low global cloud levels? It disappears.
How can the recent non warming period be noise, when the previous cooling period before it combined were many decades longer? If it noise than why is non warming period almost as long as the warming was?
We have a less than 20 years warming period versus 65+ year cooling/non warming period.
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 11:19 am
“I want to find a skeptic who believes that the warming have stopped to bet with.”
You do know that your ‘bet’ of ‘one ounce of silver’ is about $20 US or £12 sterling? Most people I know would put their reputation (which is really what is at stake here) at a slightly higher value than that.
I am surprised you put your own value/reputation so low.
Does make you sound more like a child that a scientist or even an adult.
Matt G says:
January 5, 2014 at 12:04 pm
I understand very well thanks. and the noise you are talking about is really the warming blip that occurred for less than 20 years.. This warming blip was mainly caused by solar fueled El Ninos that jumped global temperatures to different levels. Most of the warming during this period occurred in just 2 steps. (2 strong El Ninos)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m afraid not Matt….
If the warming was due to the preponderance of El Ninos prior 2005 then the cyclic nature of the warm/cold SST’s in the E equatorial Pacific would have seen falling temps since and a return to the pre El Nino temps.
The following graph shows that the ENSO cycle has followed the warming trend and NOT caused it.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf
Splice:
At January 5, 2014 at 11:09 am you say
I am a true sceptic of AGW. Indeed, I was probably the very first sceptic of the AGW-scare because I predicted the scare would occur BEFORE it was initiated although it then was (and still is) scientifically ridiculous; see
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/richard-courtney-the-history-of-the-global-warming-scare/
Firstly, I know for certain fact that there is no evidence for AGW: none, zilch, nada.
Please note the stark nature of my statement: you would refute it by citing one solitary piece of empirical evidence. If you could do that then you would certainly obtain at least one Nobel Prize because three decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of more than $5 billion per year has failed to find any. (In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found such evidence but it was almost immediately observed that his finding was an artifact of his having cherry-picked a sub-set from the middle of the time series he had analysed).
Secondly, global warming HAS stopped. That is not a “claim”: it is an empirical fact.
So-called ‘climate science’ uses linear trends and applies 95% confidence. There are good reasons to dispute the adoption of linear trends and to dispute the use of 95% as appropriate confidence. But so-called ‘climate science’ does use linear trends and does apply 95% confidence so those are the conventions which are appropriate to use in this case.
Starting from now and working back in time one discovers that each of the data sets of global temperature shows a linear trend which cannot be discerned as being different from zero at 95% confidence for at least 17 years (RSS says 22 years).
In other words, when the criteria set by so-called ‘climate science’ are used then the available data sets each indicates there has been no discernible global warming or global cooling trend for at least 17 years.
And this is why even the IPCC admits that there is a “pause” in global warming.
However, it cannot be known if global warming will resume (so has “paused”) or if global cooling will occur in future. All that can be said with certainty is that a discernible trend of global warming has stopped.
But I will not take your bet because
(a) I don’t bet
and
(b) it cannot be known if global warming will resume (so has “paused”) or if global cooling will occur in future.
Your assertion that I and other sceptics don’t believe our own claims is extremely egregious.
WE DO NOT MAKE CLAIMS: we point out what the scientific evidence says.
You want us to make a bet about your claim – not ours – and your claim is based on your superstitious belief in AGW. We do not have superstitious beliefs: we adhere to whatever scientific evidence indicates; and there is no evidence which enables anybody to know if the so-called “pause” will end with future warming or future cooling.
Richard
TB says:
January 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
I’m afraid not Matt….
If the warming was due to the preponderance of El Ninos prior 2005 then the cyclic nature of the warm/cold SST’s in the E equatorial Pacific would have seen falling temps since and a return to the pre El Nino temps.
The following graph shows that the ENSO cycle has followed the warming trend and NOT caused it.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf
—————————————————————-
Afraid that’s not true because the warmer surface SSTs in E equatorial Pacific are moved away from this region firstly westwards to the W equatorial Pacific, then by ocean circulation currents N/S around the world eventually to the poles, especially Arctic. This behavior makes it irrelevant how the cycle nature of SSTs in the E equatorial Pacific changes on a global scale.
The circulation of the warmer temperatures through the oceans keeps global temperatures still high after the event because warming other parts of the world.
The graph below shows removing the ENSO for only the period it occurs in the E equatorial Pacific makes no difference to the step increase caused by the El Nino originally, Just occurs straight after supporting the observation how it warms other oceans in the world keeping high levels still. Eventually these energy levels in the surface oceans decline more the longer a stronger El NIno is absent. Also shows ENSO cant be removed from global temperatures by using just the E equatorial Pacific.
Should read.
“This behavior makes it irrelevant how the cycle nature of SSTs in the E equatorial Pacific changes compared to the global scale.”
Matt G says:
January 5, 2014 at 1:22 pm
TB says:
January 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
I’m afraid not Matt….
If the warming was due to the preponderance of El Ninos prior 2005 then the cyclic nature of the warm/cold SST’s in the E equatorial Pacific would have seen falling temps since and a return to the pre El Nino temps.
The following graph shows that the ENSO cycle has followed the warming trend and NOT caused it.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf
—————————————————————-
Afraid that’s not true because the warmer surface SSTs in E equatorial Pacific are moved away from this region firstly westwards to the W equatorial Pacific, then by ocean circulation currents N/S around the world eventually to the poles, especially Arctic. This behavior makes it irrelevant how the cycle nature of SSTs in the E equatorial Pacific changes on a global scale.
The circulation of the warmer temperatures through the oceans keeps global temperatures still high after the event because warming other parts of the world.
The graph below shows removing the ENSO for only the period it occurs in the E equatorial Pacific makes no difference to the step increase caused by the El Nino originally, Just occurs straight after supporting the observation how it warms other oceans in the world keeping high levels still. Eventually these energy levels in the surface oceans decline more the longer a stronger El NIno is absent. Also shows ENSO cant be removed from global temperatures by using just the E equatorial Pacific.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No they don’t – SST’s are not the same as mixed, sub-surface temps and the graph clearly shows ENSO state VS Global temps. Full stop. The heated El Nino waters only affect the Equ E Pacific. There is no correlation of the cycle to Global ave temps. The Max/min trend lines follow the global (rising) trend.
BTW: your graph shows the same as my link – just without neutral and La Nina states. Can you not see the rising trend line. You can’t get something from nothing. If an El Nino raises global temps (and it is sourced in the Equ E Pacific – sorry) then it WILL fall back to the same level at the end of the cycle. Otherwise you are “pulling yourself up by your own braces”. The energy must come from either the sun or from the store of deeper waters. It is a cycle that plays out over the climate signal of balance between solar absorbed and LWIR emitted. To do otherwise (add heat to the atmosphere integrally) then something else must cool). It’s not the Sun and sea temps at depth are rising, not falling.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/tbw/nino/sst_9798_animated.gif
“then by ocean circulation currents N/S around the world eventually to the poles, especially Arctic.”
Matt, deep ocean currents take 100’s to over a thousand years to complete one cycle.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs re the down fall of the Solar and Wind turbine industries in the EU
The DutchNews dec 23 0r 24 :: Dutch Government earmarks more parts of the North Sea for wind farms.
The government has earmarked almost 1,500 square kilometers of the North Sea as potential sites for new offshore wind farms in an effort to meet sustainable energy targets. – See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/12/#sthash.DaXjBKlN.dpuf
I read the article the Gov is providing 15- 18 billion EU over 15 years. On witch I commented it would then in 2029 add another 15-18 billion EU (in today’s money) to start replacing them.
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 2:48 am
@wbrozek
Since 1998 we had already 15 years with Earth’s average radiative imbalance >1 Watt/m^2. It’s enough to heat >100 meters of water depth and >100 meters of ground depth by 1 Celcius degree. The only thing needed now to have a record is no (or little) oceanic water convention (and no large volcano eruption simultaneously, but this much I’m ready to risk).
Well if it was there the radiative imbalance that was enough to heat 100 meters of water and 100 m of ground by 1°C where is that heat and how did it get there? Why did it not heat the atmosphere by something more then nill?
You mean it hides in the depth of the ocean? How did it bypass the first 100 meters of the oceans?
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/shock-news-global-warming-bypasses-even-the-first-100-meters-of-ocean/
You mean Scotty has beamed all that energy down there?
I rather think your imbalance is a rounding error.
@Box of Rocks
The mechanism doesn’t work that way.
Earth surface radiates about 340 Watts/m^2 (Watt is a metric unit which equals about 1/1050 Btu per second).
If Earth had an atmosphere compound from non-greenhouse gases only the radiation would be the same at the top of the atmospehere as at the surface, because of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere Earth has radiation of only 240 Watts/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere (about 70% of the surface radiation).
For Venus panet for instance radiation at the top of the atmosphere is of order of 1% of that on surface.
@RichardLH
Read again my bet proposition. You didn’t understand what I’ve written about value I’m ready to bet.
@Matt G
We simply have the signal which constantly goes up and the noise which in some periods goes up and in other periods goes down. As we are able to observe only the sum of them we see “pause” in periods when noise goes down.
That’s why I’m ready to bet we will have a record after next future El Nino (as ENSO is the largest source of the noise).
@richardscourtney
You don’t understand how science evidence of this kind works: no statistically significant trend in data doesn’t mean there is no signal – as I’ve written above no statistically significant trend will be observed in periods when signal goes up and noise goes down and such a situation couldn’t be called a pause in the signal.
If you believed signal stopped to go up (or that there is no signal at all) you would bet. That’s why I think you don’t belive your own claims.
TB says:
January 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm
“then by ocean circulation currents N/S around the world eventually to the poles, especially Arctic.”
Matt, deep ocean currents take 100’s to over a thousand years to complete one cycle.
———————————————————————————————————
The surface ocean currents driven by wind only take months.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/tbw/nino/sst_9798_animated.gif
Where does the energy go when the El Nino fades?
It moves west in trade winds to the w equatorial Pacific
“There is no correlation of the cycle to Global ave temps. The Max/min trend lines follow the global (rising) trend.”
Yes there is, each Strong El Nino causes a step in global temperatures roughly half what the originally El Nino caused. This rise occurs after each strong El Nino and stays flat until another occurs. How do you explain that?
“The energy must come from either the sun or from the store of deeper waters. It is a cycle that plays out over the climate signal of balance between solar absorbed and LWIR emitted. To do otherwise (add heat to the atmosphere integrally) then something else must cool). It’s not the Sun and sea temps at depth are rising, not falling.”
I have already described before where the energy comes from (decreasing low global clouds, increased solar energy).and this is why the temperatures at depth are slowly rising.
@Larry Plume P.
I’m here not to explain the thermal energy exchange processes (nor debunk some ignorant internet articles about these processes). Sorry.
Splice, you remind me of a schoolyard bully taunting the other guys to get them into trouble.
This is why no one will bet with you. Straight from the IPCC:
Warmist may operate on faith we do not.
Splice:
At January 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm you write:
I “don’t understand how science evidence of this kind works”!?
I am offended that you would think I am as ignorant of these matters as you demonstrate yourself to be.
As I explained,
Over the last 17 years there is no discernible trend according to the criteria used by so-called ‘climate science’. But there was a discernible trend for the previous 17 years according to those criteria. Hence, discernible global warming has stopped (as even the IPCC admits).
And NO I would NOT bet on anything under any circumstances.
I repeat, I DO NOT MAKE CLAIMS. I accept the empirical evidence.
I am a scientist so I identify what is not known. And, as I told you, there is no evidence which indicates if the “pause” will be ended by discernible warming or discernible cooling.
You have a superstitious faith in AGW so you believe what your superstition says will happen.
For me it is a matter of science and you have no right to demand that I should accept superstitious belief as you do.
I would accept your apology.
Richard
Splice:
Your entire post at January 5, 2014 at 2:20 pm says.
There was no need for that apology because it is clear to all that you are not here to explain the thermal energy exchange processes: nobody expects you to explain what you obviously do not understand.
However, you could have had the good grace to thank LarsP for his clear and succinct exposure of the flaws in your erroneous assertions.
And I would appreciate the apologies which you owe to me.
Richard
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 2:20 pm
@Larry Plume P.
I’m here not to explain the thermal energy exchange processes (nor debunk some ignorant internet articles about these processes). Sorry.
Splice, you make unfounded claims and when data is presented you ignore it and hide behind words.
The ocean heat content 0-100 m is based on real data – as you have seen if you would have looked at Suyts:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_avt_data.html
Typical.
Why don’t you explain “the thermal energy exchange processes” based on real data?
Lars P. says:
January 5, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 2:48 am
@wbrozek
Since 1998 we had already 15 years with Earth’s average radiative imbalance >1 Watt/m^2. It’s enough to heat >100 meters of water depth and >100 meters of ground depth by 1 Celcius degree. The only thing needed now to have a record is no (or little) oceanic water convention (and no large volcano eruption simultaneously, but this much I’m ready to risk).
Well if it was there the radiative imbalance that was enough to heat 100 meters of water and 100 m of ground by 1°C where is that heat and how did it get there? Why did it not heat the atmosphere by something more then nill?
You mean it hides in the depth of the ocean? How did it bypass the first 100 meters of the oceans?
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/shock-news-global-warming-bypasses-even-the-first-100-meters-of-ocean/
You mean Scotty has beamed all that energy down there?
I rather think your imbalance is a rounding error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lars:
When we have an El Nino – the warm Equatorial E Pacific waters warm the atmosphere via latent heat release from convective action – then the SST’s cool to a La Nina state and the convection cycle weakens – so less heat available to transport to the atm. This is cyclic and adds NO net extra heat to the atmosphere. It cannot unless the warm cycle is greater than the cold, and in that case the heat must have come from deeper waters, as it’s not the Sun.
Deeper waters are warmed via a net inflow of energy because in the La Nina state the waters are subject to more SW absorption than in the El Nino state (clearer skies) and this extra heat gets mixed to depth in the Equ W Pacific as it sinks and mixes via turbulence before up-welling along the Chilean/Peruvian coastline etc.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/enso_patterns.htm
http://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/atmo/el-scans/dwelling.jpg
Also oceans have enormous thermal inertia due mass and high specific heat (~4x air ) so then a 1C rise transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans would only mean a rise of temp there of 1/4000th that – so that would be 0.00025C
https://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect9/Sect9_4.html
So the upshot is that it is easy to hide the extra heat in the deeper ocean.
And the ENSO cycle can indeed (temporarily) stall atmospheric temps.
Splice says:
January 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm
@RichardLH
Read again my bet proposition. You didn’t understand what I’ve written about value I’m ready to bet.
I understand that your rather childish offer of a bet is somehow supposed to demonstrate that you have a much better and clearer understanding of the science, the data and the future.
I simply asked you for your prediction of the evolution into the future of two rather well known climate data sets, HadCrut4 and UAH. So that I can understand what it is you are proposing to bet on and so we have to have something independent to judge the results by.
So far I don’t even know the timescale over which this bet runs. Are we betting on if it will be above 0 or below in, say Jan 2014 in Oxford UK, or CET over the next year, or what?
I believe my contrarian claims. For several years I made money on the Irish-based Intrade site when I bet that the next year’s temperature (per GISS) would not be the warmest on record nor among the 5 warmest on record. It’s a great shame that Intrade has had to shut down. I hope that it will get back on its feet again, or that the US will allow online betting on such matters.
It’s virtually impossible to arrange one-on-one bets on this matter–the overhead is too high.
@richardscourtney
Most probably you are simply lying about almost anything:
– you are not a scientist (you didn’t published any peer-rewiewed article), you didn’t even notice that internet article Lars P. linked is extremly ignorant.
– you don’t see any evidence of pause
– your claim that IPCC addmitted a pause is a lay too
– and you simply don’t believe your own claims (you realize that this low-noise-level-caused-pause will end with further warm as soon as the noise will increase)
@Larry Plume P.
I’m here to find a skeptic who believes their own claims (that warming have stopped).
@RogerKnights
In the last dacade almost all years without La Nina were landing in the top 5, 2005 and 2010 were hottest on recors (per GISS). What bets did you made?
Splice:
At January 6, 2014 at 1:05 am you compound your offensive and egregious behaviour.
You say
That is an offensive falsehood. APOLOGISE.
You say
That is three offensive falsehoods. APOLOGISE for each of them.
You say
That is another falsehood: I explained the clear and undeniable evidence to you. APOLOGISE.
You say
That is another falsehood (and a spelling error). APOLOGISE.
You say
I have repeatedly explained to you that I make no claims. Being a scientist, I accept the indications of the empirical evidence which I explained to you, and I reject any “belief” of the kind you insultingly assert I should have. APOLOGISE.
And when you have completed your series of needed grovelling apologies, crawl back under your rock.
Richard
Friends:
The anonymous and ignorant troll is having success at disrupting this thread with nonsense.
He/she/they/it has now resorted to smears and falsehoods.
I strongly commend that there be no further responses to the troll unless and until the troll withdraws the falsehoods and apologies. Otherwise this thread will be dragged down into the troll’s slime.
Richard
Ooops I intended to write
I strongly commend that there be no further responses to the troll unless and until the troll withdraws the falsehoods and apologises.
The misprint of my missing ‘s’ changed my intended meaning. Sorry.
Richard