On Dec 31, 8:38*am, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Thursday 30 Dec 2010 18:44, Lawrence Jenkins scribbled:

Interesting I'll need to watch it several times.

http://www.accuweather.com/video/732...obe-will-(is)-

cool(ing)-or-will-appear-to.asp?channel=vbbastaj

I'm beta-testing at the moment and this video is jerky with no sound. If it
were working properly I'd hear the sound but the jerk would still be there.
Pass.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
It was raining cats and dogs and I fell in a poodle. [Chic
Murray(1919-1985)]

You aren't missing much :-(

Joe is claiming that "Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy, and
the dirty little secret of the whole AGW debate is that total kinteic
energy of the Earth over the longer term is not changing, but is
cyclical."

It may not be obvious at first how the total kinetic energy of the
Earth can be unchanging and can be cyclical. I think what he is
arguing is when we get cold weather over the UK and the USA the Arctic
is warmer. So the temperature in the USA goes in cycles which follow
the PDO. But the total kinetic energy of the globe remains the same.
That does not agree with measurements which show that the average
temperature of the globe has risen.

Another mistake he makes is to argue that the kinetic energy increases
sub-exponentially with temperature. What he is doing is mixing up wet
bulb temperatures with real temperatures. Energy does increase sub-
exponentially with wet bulb temperature, but it is latent energy, not
kinetic energy, which causes that.

In other words he is no expert, just a charlatan!

Cheers, Alastair.