On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 at 18:23:53, John Hall
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

FWIW I believe in AGW

Personally, I believe in GW, but not AGW...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 at 06:35:11, Col wrote
in uk.sci.weather :

Alastair wrote:

Neither you nor Col know what the evidence is so how can you say that
the claim cannot be supported by that evidence?

The 'evidence' so far is some vague reference to lake deposits.
Until firmer evidence comes to light, it seems reasonable to
remain sceptical.

Precisely - indirect evidence such as lake cores can only show trends,
not individual events/extremes.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Aug 11, 7:20*am, Paul Hyett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 at 14:35:26, Alastair
wrote in uk.sci.weather :



You are as bad as Lawrence. He claims that the heat waves, droughts,
floods and melting ice sheets predicted by climatatologists are not
happening. He dismisses the Moscow heat wave as weather, and probably
accepts your explanation of the Pakistan floods as being caused by an
aberration in the Polar Jet Stream. I suppose you think the Chines
floods have a similar cause.

One exceptional event is weather, two are a misfortune, but too many
to list is climate change!

Has anyone attempted to run a Chi Squared test on their current
frequency, compared to say 30-40 years ago, though?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Do you think that scientists would have only done stats as simple as
that Paul? Really? Come on! You are welcome to your beliefs, I sit at
the same sceptical table currently, at a seat a long way removed from
the head of the table, Imight add, but if we see no significant
cooling through this La Nina, I probably won't any longer.

Paul Hyett wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 at 06:35:11, Col wrote
in uk.sci.weather :

Alastair wrote:

Neither you nor Col know what the evidence is so how can you say
that the claim cannot be supported by that evidence?

The 'evidence' so far is some vague reference to lake deposits.
Until firmer evidence comes to light, it seems reasonable to
remain sceptical.

Precisely - indirect evidence such as lake cores can only show trends,
not individual events/extremes.

Well that was a point I made yesterday, but went unanswered.

I was surprised that such deposits would be able to establish
the existence of a summer heat wave (or lack of it) to individual
years 1000 years ago. This would seemingly stretch this
technique beyond what it is actually capable of.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Aug 11, 7:10*am, "Col" wrote:
Paul Hyett wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 at 06:35:11, Col wrote
in uk.sci.weather :

Alastair wrote:

Neither you nor Col know what the evidence is so how can you say
that the claim cannot be supported by that evidence?

The 'evidence' so far is some vague reference to lake deposits.
Until firmer evidence comes to light, it seems reasonable to
remain sceptical.

Precisely - indirect evidence such as lake cores can only show trends,
not individual events/extremes.

Well that was a point I made yesterday, but went unanswered.

I was surprised that such deposits would be able to establish
the existence of a summer heat wave (or lack of it) to individual
years 1000 years ago. This would seemingly stretch this
technique beyond what it is actually capable of.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

Varves can be read like tree rings. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

I apologise for calling you a denier. I should have read your original
post more carefully.But there is a war going on led by people even
more extreme than Lawrence and backed by money from the oil, coal, and
auto industries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

Idle talk cost lives. The death rate in Moscow has doubled, and no one
knows how many have died in Pakistan and China from the floods. So
please be careful the next time you post that you are not giving
comfort to the enemy.

Thanks for listening to my rants. I don't think I have anything more
to say, so I will sign off now.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Aug 11, 8:10*am, "Col" wrote:
Paul Hyett wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 at 06:35:11, Col wrote
in uk.sci.weather :

Alastair wrote:

Neither you nor Col know what the evidence is so how can you say
that the claim cannot be supported by that evidence?

The 'evidence' so far is some vague reference to lake deposits.
Until firmer evidence comes to light, it seems reasonable to
remain sceptical.

Precisely - indirect evidence such as lake cores can only show trends,
not individual events/extremes.

Well that was a point I made yesterday, but went unanswered.

I was surprised that such deposits would be able to establish
the existence of a summer heat wave (or lack of it) to individual
years 1000 years ago. This would seemingly stretch this
technique beyond what it is actually capable of.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

I feel the same. Treat the results with a healthy dose of scepticism
until Alastair can link to the actual paper and we can then judge the
veracity of the claim.

On 11/08/2010 07:22, Paul Hyett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 at 18:23:53, John Hall
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

FWIW I believe in AGW

Personally, I believe in GW, but not AGW...

You can't balance the energy budget after about 1970 unless you include
additional GHG forcing in the climate models. Even sceptical scientists
like Baliunas & Soon admit that. See for example:

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1996ApJ...472..891S

The amount of CO2 and CH4 we are emitting now is already enough to be a
nuisance in the longer term. Problem is that it will only really cause
serious trouble for the next generation or even the one after that. The
Keeling CO2 curve is the smoking gun as far as industrial emissions are
concerned. We can measure O2 as well on the other side of the equation.

It is difficult to see how politicians for whom 5 years is "long" will
ever deal with this no matter what the scientific community advises.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:56:20 +0100
Martin Brown wrote:
The amount of CO2 and CH4 we are emitting now is already enough to be a
nuisance in the longer term. Problem is that it will only really cause

Methane isn't the big problem people keep going on about. Yes its a much
stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 , OTOH its half life in the atmosphere
is all of 7 years compared with a few hundred for CO2.

B2003

Alastair wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:10 am, "Col" wrote:


Varves can be read like tree rings. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

I apologise for calling you a denier. I should have read your original
post more carefully.But there is a war going on led by people even
more extreme than Lawrence and backed by money from the oil, coal, and
auto industries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

Idle talk cost lives. The death rate in Moscow has doubled, and no one
knows how many have died in Pakistan and China from the floods. So
please be careful the next time you post that you are not giving
comfort to the enemy.

Good grief man, don't be so melodramatic!

First you apologise for calling me a denier then you spoil it all
by implying that what I said gives ammunition to this so-called
'enemy' of yours.
*You* leapt to the ridiculous conclusion that I was somehow
denying AGW by questioning something I had heard on the news.

You really need to get things into perspective.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

In article ,
Col writes:
Alastair wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:10 am, "Col" wrote:


Varves can be read like tree rings. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

I apologise for calling you a denier. I should have read your original
post more carefully.But there is a war going on led by people even
more extreme than Lawrence and backed by money from the oil, coal, and
auto industries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

Idle talk cost lives. The death rate in Moscow has doubled, and no one
knows how many have died in Pakistan and China from the floods. So
please be careful the next time you post that you are not giving
comfort to the enemy.

Good grief man, don't be so melodramatic!

First you apologise for calling me a denier then you spoil it all
by implying that what I said gives ammunition to this so-called
'enemy' of yours.
*You* leapt to the ridiculous conclusion that I was somehow
denying AGW by questioning something I had heard on the news.

You really need to get things into perspective.

It's not what he intends, but if anyone could convince me that AGW isn't
happening it would be Alastair. (Similarly Lawrence's posts on the
subject also have the opposite effect to that intended.)
--
John Hall

"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
Katherine Cebrian