The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has
detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and
become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma
of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for
carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or
worse as deniers..."

The full article is at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2709551.ece

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W
wrote:

...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?

--
Dave

On Oct 22, 3:05 am, Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W

wrote:
...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?

--
Dave

As far as I know it is true, but it is equally true that the mean
global temperature fell from about 1940 to 1976 when one could have
expected it to have risen, given subsequent trends. If it is true
that 1998 was the warmest year and is *still* the warmest year it
seems quite possible that the warming from 1976 to 1998 was to partly
a natural fluctuation. This doesn't deny the man-made component,
which looks too obvious to ignore, apart from theroetical
considerations, but it does mean that natural fluctuations may be more
important than first thought. Those who would deny man-made GW should
not obtain any comfort from this idea particularly if they examine the
last 100 years or so.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

In message , Dave Ludlow
writes
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W
wrote:

...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?

The second sentence is likely to be true (it's not completely clear
whether 1998 or 2005 was the warmer worldwide) but misleading - there is
an interannual variation superimposed on the secular trend, and 1998 was
particularly above the trend line - just like April 2007 was way above
the trend line in England - and the fact that 1998 was the warmest year
is not evidence against anthropogenic global warming.

(There's not enough context to comment on the initial segment fragment.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Dave Ludlow wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Scott W
wrote:

...the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

GW crusaders, is that right or wrong?


As to whether 1998 was the warmest year, it depends whose data you believe.
The Hadley data says 1998 but that from NASA says 2005. The problem I have
with the Hadley data is that it only uses areas with data. Now, some (or
many?) might see that as obviously the correct way of using the data.
However, this leads to the area warming the fastest, the Arctic, being
largely ignored.

As I understand their methods, the NASA data is expressed as anomalies and
these are interpolated over data-sparse areas so that the Arctic is
included. I'm not sure whether even this method correctly reflects the
amount of warming over the Arctic. This is an accepted method for dealing
with scattered data, for instance, the Met Office has used it for many
years in producing its SST analyses.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, one could have said in 1998 that the Earth
hadn't warmed in the past 8 years and in 1990 that it hadn't warmed in the
past 9 years.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

Scott W wrote:
The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has
detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and
become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma
of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for
carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or
worse as deniers..."

The full article is at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2709551.ece


I ever trust anyone that says "the average" of anything. The average is
a very crude measure. I rather be told the standard deviation it gives
a much more clear measure.


--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
~175m ASL

Scott W wrote:
The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has
detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and
become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma
of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for
carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or
worse as deniers..."

The full article is at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2709551.ece


I never trust anyone that says "the average" of anything. The average
is a very crude measure. I rather be told the standard deviation it
gives a much more clear measure.

To prove my point a little joke: Three hunters were in the forest, they
saw a bear, one of the hunters said," I'll shoot him easy", the bear
moved at the last minute, and the shot went two inches to the left. The
second hunter said,"Bad luck, I'll show you how a proper hunter does
it!", He got his aim, just has he shot he slipped on the wet ground the
the shot went two inches to the right of the bear. The third hunter
said," No point in me taking a shot, on average we've shot the bear!".



--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
~175m ASL

"Joe Egginton" wrote :

I never trust anyone that says "the average" of anything. The average is
a very crude measure. I rather be told the standard deviation it gives a
much more clear measure.

To prove my point a little joke: Three hunters were in the forest, they
saw a bear, one of the hunters said," I'll shoot him easy", the bear moved
at the last minute, and the shot went two inches to the left. The second
hunter said,"Bad luck, I'll show you how a proper hunter does it!", He got
his aim, just has he shot he slipped on the wet ground the the shot went
two inches to the right of the bear. The third hunter said," No point in
me taking a shot, on average we've shot the bear!".

And of course there are over 6 billion people on this planet with
above-the-average number of legs.

Philip

"Scott W" wrote :

The botanist has added his two penneth to the debate in a rather
interesting piece in the comment section of today's (Monday) Times...
It starts:

"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is "no" and
"yes".

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up
against an "inconvenient truth". Its research shows that since 1998
the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to
increase.

Come on guys ... you're not taken in by this crude manipulation,
are you? You don't identify a trend by picking the warmest
year on record (warm because of the rampant El Niño occurring
at the time ... all El Niño years are globally warm) and then comparing
that with subsequent years. If you select your start and finish points
you can prove anything.

And Dr Bellamy thinks he can get away with calling a graph of global
temperature "research" without being accused of being misleading.

Philip

On Oct 22, 11:26 am, "Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom
wrote:
"Joe Egginton" wrote :

I never trust anyone that says "the average" of anything. The average is
a very crude measure. I rather be told the standard deviation it gives a
much more clear measure.

To prove my point a little joke: Three hunters were in the forest, they
saw a bear, one of the hunters said," I'll shoot him easy", the bear moved
at the last minute, and the shot went two inches to the left. The second
hunter said,"Bad luck, I'll show you how a proper hunter does it!", He got
his aim, just has he shot he slipped on the wet ground the the shot went
two inches to the right of the bear. The third hunter said," No point in
me taking a shot, on average we've shot the bear!".

And of course there are over 6 billion people on this planet with
above-the-average number of legs.

below the average, surely...