On Jul 31, 12:59 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
There are many ways to demonstrate a fact.

-.-. --.- Roger
=-=-=-=-=-=
Source: American Physical Society
Date: July 30, 2007

Stronger Evidence For Human Origin Of Global Warming

Science Daily - A recent statistical analysis strengthens evidence
that human activities are causing world temperatures to rise. Most
climate change scientists model Earth systems from the ground up,
attempting to account for all climate driving forces. Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change.

(cut)

Part of the cause is a human "fudge factor" making the warming
appear greater than it actually is. See

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENT...RATURE_TWO.doc

And a second part of the human cause is the increase in energy
use, and its concentration in urban areas. Cut out energy use, go
back to a medieval economy, with its medieval sanitaton and medieval
life expectancy, and that would solve a major fraction of the
problem.- A. McIntire

On Aug 1, 5:07 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On 31 Jul, 21:59, Roger Coppock wrote:

Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change.

So you admit the models are useless?

I especially appreciate the line in the article which refers to "the
subjective flaws of climate models". It, and the one you quote, are
the wisest comments I recall Roger ever posting. And I agree with
chemist's description of the new analysis as be less than
comprehensive. The UK folks who have been denigrating Piers Corbyn's
'Solar Weather Technique' for years continue to point to analysis of
solar irradiance changes instead of looking at the particle flux,
which Corbyn emphasizes as key. The Guardian published a letter from
him last week, in part predicting periods of heavy flooding Aug 5-9
and Aug 18-23. --
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...133167,00.html

More info in Mr Corbyn's company's news release of July 26:

NEWS RELEASE Issued 26th July 2007

Weather Action writes to Gordon Brown:
Heavy rain and Flooding to continue in England and Wales.
Serious risk of flooding in London in August

Weather Action have written to Gordon Brown - letter attached
- warning him that - contrary to advice from the Met Office - that
rather than improve within a few days or early August the rain and
flood crisis in England and Wales will worsen and continue for another
month and that there is a serious risk of flooding in London.

In his letter Piers Corbyn spelt out the most serious weather periods
from late July:

22nd-26th July, 5th-9th August and 18th -23rd August and also warns
that in these periods that Met Office computer models will under-
estimate severity of rain, thunder and wind (even from only 12 hours
ahead).

On the flood risk for London Piers writes; "The High tides associated
with the New moon on 12th August and the Full moon on 28th August mean
that with the heightened level of the Thames during and in days
following these very wet periods in the South there is serious risk of
flooding in London" . He also issued this warning on CNN
International on 25th July.

Weather Action has 90% confidence in their long Range forecasts which
have been correct through the summer while the MetOffice long range
forecast for a warm or very summer which could posibly reach 100F and
'no indications of (a) partcularly wet summmer' have spectacularly
failed.

In his letter, which is closely argued and includes web link reference
which enable the public to follow, Piers points out that
the suggestion that the floods are in any way evidence of man-made CO2
Climate Change or Global Warming are 'absurd' and have no logical
scientific basis even in terms of the IPCC's own Summary for Policy
Makers.

He criticises Sir David King the Government's Chief scientific
adviser, for 'staggeringly' choosing not to explain on TV that this
weather is a consequence of a shift in the jet stream - and that such
shifts are known (links to USA's nasa space science web given) to be
related to changes in the the particle and magnetic activity of the
sun.

Piers points out that the causes of these very wet periods originate
on the Sun and indeed his predictions of a new geomagnetic activity
and an active region on the sun to appear along with the bad weather
period (eg for late June) appeared when predicted - confirming his
prediction issued publicly at the Institute Of Physics on 7th June..

"If man's CO2 is really the cause of the bad weather then man's
acivity must be changing what is happening on the Sun. The idea that
man's CO2 is causing these events on the sun in totally barmy" Piers
said today.

He writes in the letter: "CO2 centred theory has no power to predict.
It is faith rather than reliable science"

Other press release and information available on request

Thank you

Weather Action, Delta House, 175-177 Borough High Street. London SE1
1HR
Tel +44(0)20 7939 9946 Fax +44(0)20 7939
9901 E:
From: Piers Corbyn 07958713320 (or office above)

--- END OF QUOTED NEWS RELEASE

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:

Piers Corbyn's 'Solar Weather Technique'

About 0 for 5, isn't it? Maybe this one will be correct. Even a stopped
clock is right once a day.

Oh, how did the last one do?

The last astrology prediction for the UK.

(Nov 11 2006)
Piers Corbyn, managing director of long-term forecasters Weather Action,
predicted Arctic air blasting across the whole country towards the close
of the month.

He said temperatures will sink as low as -14 C in exposed Highland
locations, with the rest of the country experiencing hard frosts and heavy
snow showers.

Mr Corbyn said: "There will be some notably cold and snowy parts. Coming
after such a mild October these conditions will feel especially cold."

Let us verify (Nov 28 2006):

London:

Clearly a blast of Arctic air. From the south, even. As cold as 6 C
overnight. High temperatures only up to 14 C during the day. That is
almost 60 F, for the metric challenged. Bitter cold.

Scotland Highlands:

No snow, not cold, not even freezing. Oh, wait:

At the top of Cairngorm (Aviemore) ski area, forecast temperature for
overnight Tuesday (today) is 0 C with light snow. Then warmer (4 C) with
heavy rain. With a strong southwest wind, clearly from the Arctic. Sounds
like grand skiing weather.

Another real winner, this one was.


--
Caution, contents may contain sarcasm.
Phil Hays

"chemist" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 1, 5:01 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:10 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:



In article .com,
says...

"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Please provide a calculation of the Earth's temperature without the
Greenhouse Effect. Don't forget that convection, which operates in
parallel with the IR losses from the surface, cools further.
Then compare that with the actual measured value.

To do that calculation, Eric,
Tom would need to have . . .

(drum roll)

. . . a model.

Roger
I could show you and the rest that the science
of AGW rest on very shaky unprovable principles.

You always say that crap. But somehow, you never, ever do it. lol

How can anyone who claims to be a Christian be a
serial liar, Steve?

On Jul 31, 4:39 pm, chemist wrote:
"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .


Uh, the second and third paragraphs are about work which overcomes
that.

Is one paragraph the limit you can read? Do you doze off when you
come to an indent?

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Yeah, that and that perky "earth going around the sun" thing too.

On Aug 1, 2:11 am, chemist wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:01 am, Roger Coppock wrote:



On Jul 31, 8:10 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article .com,
says...

"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Please provide a calculation of the Earth's temperature without the
Greenhouse Effect. Don't forget that convection, which operates in
parallel with the IR losses from the surface, cools further.
Then compare that with the actual measured value.

To do that calculation, Eric,
Tom would need to have . . .

(drum roll)

. . . a model.

Roger
I could show you and the rest that the science
of AGW rest on very shaky unprovable principles.

Idiot alert!

I could demonstrate that the "warming" effect of CO2
is reducing as its concentration increases.

Idiot alert level yellow.

That your assertion that Southern Ocean does not
affect the global temperature continuously is false.
That correcting the temperature for such effects
would destroy the relationship between CO2 and
temperature.
These facts indicate that CO2 is increased by the
rising temperature

Idiot alert level orange.

That the reduction in the amount of Solar energy
reflected from the Earth accounts for the warming
of the 1990s .
That the Global temperatures have been contaminated
by UHI and that they have been manipulated by scientists
in order to support AGW (actually it took only 2 or 3
scientists to do that)

Idiot alert level red!

No doubt you and your ilk would deny that such facts
endanger your theory but the do.

Our ilk just includes something like 98% of all scientists. Your ilk
includes 98% of all idiots.

It is not skeptics such as myself that are in denial
it is you and the scientists behind the IPCC
You and they are in denial of the developing science that offers
other explanations of the warming.
You probably have more facilities wealth and information
than myself and you could discover most of the above facts
for yourself but you will only look at your side of the argument
and call all your opponents liars.
In the past you have accused me of being a pervert,of being obsessed
and in need of medical attention.You call all your opponents Fossil
Fools and pretend that you are a scientist.
I can assure you that you are not.

You couldn't even find "science" in the dictionary, you poor pathetic
fool.

On Aug 1, 10:17 am, Phil Hays wrote:
SteveSchulinwrote:
Piers Corbyn's 'Solar Weather Technique'

About 0 for 5, isn't it? Maybe this one will be correct. Even a stopped
clock is right once a day.

Oh, how did the last one do?

The last astrology prediction for the UK.

(Nov 11 2006)
Piers Corbyn, managing director of long-term forecasters Weather Action,
predicted Arctic air blasting across the whole country towards the close
of the month.

He said temperatures will sink as low as -14 C in exposed Highland
locations, with the rest of the country experiencing hard frosts and heavy
snow showers.

Mr Corbyn said: "There will be some notably cold and snowy parts. Coming
after such a mild October these conditions will feel especially cold."

Let us verify (Nov 28 2006):

London:

Clearly a blast of Arctic air. From the south, even. As cold as 6 C
overnight. High temperatures only up to 14 C during the day. That is
almost 60 F, for the metric challenged. Bitter cold.

Scotland Highlands:

No snow, not cold, not even freezing. Oh, wait:

At the top of Cairngorm (Aviemore) ski area, forecast temperature for
overnight Tuesday (today) is 0 C with light snow. Then warmer (4 C) with
heavy rain. With a strong southwest wind, clearly from the Arctic. Sounds
like grand skiing weather.

Another real winner, this one was.

Hi Phil - hope all's well with you. I hope your public display here
combining new superficiality with long-limp assertions isn't some
indicator that you're in some turn for the worse. The notion that Nov
28 is adequate sample for "towards the end of November" as you put it,
even if everything else you say is accurate, seems silly on its face.
Are you truly a silly person these days?

Hope you get better!

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:

On Aug 1, 10:17 am, Phil Hays wrote:
SteveSchulinwrote:
Piers Corbyn's 'Solar Weather Technique'

About 0 for 5, isn't it? Maybe this one will be correct. Even a stopped
clock is right once a day.

Oh, how did the last one do?

The last astrology prediction for the UK.

(Nov 11 2006)
Piers Corbyn, managing director of long-term forecasters Weather Action,
predicted Arctic air blasting across the whole country towards the close
of the month.

He said temperatures will sink as low as -14 C in exposed Highland
locations, with the rest of the country experiencing hard frosts and
heavy snow showers.

Mr Corbyn said: "There will be some notably cold and snowy parts. Coming
after such a mild October these conditions will feel especially cold."

The notion that Nov 28
is adequate sample for "towards the end of November" as you put it, even
if everything else you say is accurate, seems silly on its face.

Really. How nice.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/.../november.html

"20th to 30th: Low pressure dominated the weather and there were frequent
spells of heavy rain or showers accompanied by strong to gale-force winds.
There were brighter interludes on the 24th and 26th, while on the 25th, a
tornado was reported in Hampshire."

Doesn't sound much like Arctic air, with hard frosts and heavy snow
showers.


--
Phil Hays

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 31, 8:10 pm, (Eric Swanson) wrote:
In article .com,
says...

"Unfortunately,
small changes in the models can lead to a broad range of outcomes,
inviting debate over the actual causes of climate change."

So Models are Useless when it comes to forecasting future
climate .

The"statistical approach seeing it as puzzle" is my approach
and I have come to a very different conclusion than the
Professor. I have looked many more variables than he and my knowledge
of Astronomy and History has led me me to the conclusion that
the greenhouse effect is a myth.

Please provide a calculation of the Earth's temperature without the
Greenhouse Effect. Don't forget that convection, which operates in
parallel with the IR losses from the surface, cools further.
Then compare that with the actual measured value.

To do that calculation, Eric,
Tom would need to have . . .

(drum roll)

. . . a model.

Admit it Poppycock, you have absolutely no idea!

Regards

Bonzo

"The IPCC is, in fact, trying to predict the state of a very complex physical
system a full century out when, on the panel's own admission, scientists know
nothing about most of the variables in the model (page 16 of the physical
science summary of the IPCC's fourth assessment report)" Mark Lawson