On this programme a few minutes ago David Attenborough said that sea
temperature over the Australian Great Barrier Reef are much higher than
normal this year. The present temperature anomaly maps don't agree with
this. For example see

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/charts...SSTAnomaly.jsp

Overall, an interesting programme but I worry about the number of
scientists that appear on such programmes making very positive
pronouncements that certain changes "will" occur as a result of global
warming rather than "may" occur. Nothing is certain until after it has
occurred. And what about the inevitable changes that no-one has even
thought about yet. Have the very complex feed-back loops been adequately
modelled. I am no expert on this but it's such a complex subject that I
find it very difficult to believe that the modelling is free from
significant flaws.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

For example see

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/charts...SSTAnomaly.jsp

Isn't that just a snapshot on one day though? Hopefully, and I wouldn't know
if it is, the reference would be to the mean for the last year.
I see there is a programme on later "The great global warming conspiracy"
which may be of interest to some ;-)
I have a great faith in scientists in general (unlike the politicians' spin
put on scientific results); I have met a large number and have rarely found
one with an agenda other than to try and interpret facts accurately. I have
known them get this wrong, but not intentionally.

Dave

Dave.C wrote:

I have a great faith in scientists in general (unlike the politicians' spin
put on scientific results); I have met a large number and have rarely found
one with an agenda other than to try and interpret facts accurately. I have
known them get this wrong, but not intentionally.

The fact they tend to get wrong is to give their name to a BBC
documentary. The one good thing about David Attenborough is that he
will eventually meet his ancestors whether they be fish or fowl.

In the meantime the facts will soldier on no matter who turns up next
to interpret them. When the ridiculous has been spouted even to the
fullness of time, the truth must still come out.

The BBC and the rest of them miss out one amazing opportunity in
exchange for appeasing the directors and producers, the opportunity of
getting their facts right.

But concerning the debate in general:
The fact is very true that there is something dreadfully wrong with the
climate.

Whether it is that the snow is falling in the wrong places or the
glaciers are actually getting warmer, what is in doubt is whether the
cause is carbon dioxide emissions or; more likely, the running of
effluent straight into the sea to destroy the coral that way, hunting
fish and animals to destruction and burning down substantial sections
of forest.

I find it difficult to believe that volcanic activity (which produces
many times more carbon and sulphur dioxide than men ever have) and the
venting of natural gas resevoirs by natural means (which produces and
has always produced more methane and etc., than we have ever
manufactured) should, over the last few decades, suddenly have been
eclipsed by us.

On 24 May 2006 17:46:24 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that volcanic activity (which produces
many times more carbon and sulphur dioxide than men ever have) and the
venting of natural gas resevoirs by natural means (which produces and
has always produced more methane and etc., than we have ever
manufactured) should, over the last few decades, suddenly have been
eclipsed by us.

ISTM that the CO2 growth graph is remarkably similar to the population
growth curve.
How much CO2 is produced by the 6.5 billion of us breathing?
Is a Golgafrinchan B-Ark the answer?


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Electronics for Visio http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/

The one good thing about David Attenborough is that he
will eventually meet his ancestors whether they be fish or fowl.

Fairly typical of your comments. In my opinion David Attenborough is one of
the most eminent zoologists of our time, certainly the most influential in
producing fantastic TV programmes and inspiring young people to take an
interest in nature and the world around them. He also comes across as a very
kind, generous and humble person.
I don't take kindly to people wishing other people dead.

Dave.

Dave.C wrote:
The one good thing about David Attenborough is that he
will eventually meet his ancestors whether they be fish or fowl.

Fairly typical of your comments. In my opinion David Attenborough is one of
the most eminent zoologists of our time, certainly the most influential in
producing fantastic TV programmes and inspiring young people to take an
interest in nature and the world around them. He also comes across as a very
kind, generous and humble person.
I don't take kindly to people wishing other people dead.

I don't wish him dead. I wish he was honest.

Norman Lynagh wrote:

On this programme a few minutes ago David Attenborough said that sea
temperature over the Australian Great Barrier Reef are much higher than
normal this year. The present temperature anomaly maps don't agree with
this. For example see

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/charts...SSTAnomaly.jsp

Overall, an interesting programme but I worry about the number of
scientists that appear on such programmes making very positive
pronouncements that certain changes "will" occur as a result of global
warming rather than "may" occur. Nothing is certain until after it has
occurred. And what about the inevitable changes that no-one has even
thought about yet. Have the very complex feed-back loops been adequately
modelled. I am no expert on this but it's such a complex subject that I
find it very difficult to believe that the modelling is free from
significant flaws.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England


Most fishermen rely on sea temperatures to gauge the location of
fish,the mackeral fisheries of Tasmania went from the purse seining
method (cold surface temps) to midwater or bottom trawling as the
surface temperatures increased hence the fish relocated to deeper and
colder depths.

Fishermen need no convincing that climate imbalances exist due to the
appearance of certain species of fish at unusual times of the year,for
instance bluefish on the NY offshore grounds in March or earlier.I
remember only the surprise of the skipper and his prescient comments at
the time.