So the BBC have noted at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Take (make) what you like out of that!

Roy the Beard

its the bbc
must be real hey

On 20/10/2011 10:23 PM, Roy Avis wrote:
So the BBC have noted at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Take (make) what you like out of that!

Roy the Beard

On 20/10/2011 22:23, Roy Avis wrote:
So the BBC have noted at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Take (make) what you like out of that!

Roy the Beard

It isn't fully peer reviewed and published yet, but it tends to suggest
that there are enough scientists that the sceptics money cannot bribe.
What is very interesting here is that they have extended the time series
back to the 1800's where it appears more oscillatory. The BBC report I
heard this morning only mentioned the headline rate of change since
1950. I find the earlier data extension far more interesting.

This was an independent effort at climate analysis by physicists and
statistical experts used to handling very large datasets and they were
supposed to find that the climate scientists at UEA (and elsewhere) had
been cheating if they were to satisfy some of their sceptic sponsors.

Preliminary graphs and draft papers are online at:
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php

I haven't had chance to read them yet. But it looks very much like they
have validated all the previous work and extended it back in time by six
decades for good measure. I think Jones at al are owed an apology.

It looks like we might have the anti-science brigade on the run!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 20, 10:23*pm, "Roy Avis" wrote:
So the BBC have noted at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Take (make) what you like out of that!

Roy the Beard

Thanks Roy; I've just spent quite a while absorbed by that. It should
put to rest denier and sceptic concerns about these 4 areas and show
them that GW is real.

Statistical Methods
Urban Heat Island
Station Quality
Decadal Variations

But you can guarantee that it won't. *))

The only thing to determine now is what is causing it (if it isn't
anthropogenic CO2, what it it?), the extent to which it might warm, by
when and what, if anything, we should do to combat the probable future
problems.

On Oct 21, 10:19*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:23*pm, "Roy Avis" wrote:

So the BBC have noted at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Take (make) what you like out of that!

Roy the Beard

Thanks Roy; I've just spent quite a while absorbed by that. It should
put to rest denier and sceptic concerns about these 4 areas and show
them that GW is real.

Statistical Methods
Urban Heat Island
Station Quality
Decadal Variations

But you can guarantee that it won't. *))

The only thing to determine now is what is causing it (if it isn't
anthropogenic CO2, what it it?), the extent to which it might warm, by
when and what, if anything, we should do to combat the probable future
problems.

More unsubstantiated hype, as expected.
So, the argument swings one way, then the other, but despite all the
invented "science", eventually common sense will prevail - it usually
does, even if it takes a little while.

CK

On Oct 21, 9:24*am, Natsman wrote:
On Oct 21, 10:19*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Oct 20, 10:23*pm, "Roy Avis" wrote:

So the BBC have noted at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Take (make) what you like out of that!

Roy the Beard

Thanks Roy; I've just spent quite a while absorbed by that. It should
put to rest denier and sceptic concerns about these 4 areas and show
them that GW is real.

Statistical Methods
Urban Heat Island
Station Quality
Decadal Variations

But you can guarantee that it won't. *))

The only thing to determine now is what is causing it (if it isn't
anthropogenic CO2, what it it?), the extent to which it might warm, by
when and what, if anything, we should do to combat the probable future
problems.

More unsubstantiated hype, as expected.
So, the argument swings one way, then the other, but despite all the
invented "science", eventually common sense will prevail - it usually
does, even if it takes a little while.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You havent read it, have you?

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:24:23 -0700, Natsman wrote:


More unsubstantiated hype, as expected. So, the argument swings one way,
then the other, but despite all the invented "science", eventually
common sense will prevail - it usually does, even if it takes a little
while.


What do you mean by "unsubstantiated?" All the evidence, examined by
independent scientists agrees that global warming is happening.

Forecasts made over thirty years ago said that doubling CO2 would
increase global temperatures by about 3C. The current levels of CO2
would, on the basis of this forecast, cause a rise of 0.6C. That is
exactly what has happened.

The same forecast also predicted a cooling of the stratosphere. That has
also happened.

That forecast also said that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest
of the globe. It has.

A thirty-year-old forecast correct on all three counts.

A similar forecast based on global temperature cycles predicted a cooling
of the atmosphere. Wrong!

Global warming is real and the evidence shows that it is largely caused
by increased CO2.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.
Newsreader for Windows, Mac, Unix family: http://pan.rebelbase.com/

In message , Graham P Davis
writes
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 01:24:23 -0700, Natsman wrote:


More unsubstantiated hype, as expected. So, the argument swings one way,
then the other, but despite all the invented "science", eventually
common sense will prevail - it usually does, even if it takes a little
while.


What do you mean by "unsubstantiated?" All the evidence, examined by
independent scientists agrees that global warming is happening.

Forecasts made over thirty years ago said that doubling CO2 would
increase global temperatures by about 3C. The current levels of CO2
would, on the basis of this forecast, cause a rise of 0.6C. That is
exactly what has happened.

The same forecast also predicted a cooling of the stratosphere. That has
also happened.

That forecast also said that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest
of the globe. It has.

A thirty-year-old forecast correct on all three counts.

A similar forecast based on global temperature cycles predicted a cooling
of the atmosphere. Wrong!

Global warming is real and the evidence shows that it is largely caused
by increased CO2.



Looks like the failure of Arctic ice to re-grow is going to put this
year's October figures beyond even the 2007 low:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

James

--
James Brown

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:50:58 +0100, James Brown wrote:


Looks like the failure of Arctic ice to re-grow is going to put this
year's October figures beyond even the 2007 low:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png



I'm reserving judgement on this as the AMSR-E satellite source has been
out of order since 4th October. I don't know where NSIDC are sourcing
their data. A couple of other sites have apparently not yet switched to
SSMI though one is somehow producing graphs of ice coverage. Not sure how
they're doing it.



--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.
Newsreader for Windows, Mac, Unix family: http://pan.rebelbase.com/

In message , Graham P Davis
writes
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:50:58 +0100, James Brown wrote:


Looks like the failure of Arctic ice to re-grow is going to put this
year's October figures beyond even the 2007 low:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png



I'm reserving judgement on this as the AMSR-E satellite source has been
out of order since 4th October. I don't know where NSIDC are sourcing
their data. A couple of other sites have apparently not yet switched to
SSMI though one is somehow producing graphs of ice coverage. Not sure how
they're doing it.

Even apart from that, I'd reserve judgement. The prediction relies on a
linear trend continuing.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley