Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

Here's an extract from a Scientific American podcast at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...repor-08-12-19

Being the kind of kind person Lawrence likes I have posted this just
for him :-)

Castelvecchi: Yes. Wallace Broecker is from Columbia University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and he has traveled around the US and
the other countries to look at lakes and to study the geological
history of lakes, and the reason why he is doing this is to indirectly
predict what global warming will do to rainfall. The prevailing
wisdom, so to speak, is that with global warming, dry areas will get
drier and rainy areas will get rainier, and then there will be more
disastrous flood[s] and events like those; and what he has found
however from traveling mostly to deserts and visiting what are now dry
lakes or very small lakes in large basin[s], is that the truth may be
a little bit more complicated, and, in fact, there may have been
situations in which it went the other way around and warmer periods
corresponded to rainier—to dry areas becoming less dry and to wet
areas becoming drier.

Steve: And so that's just another wrinkle in the whole global warming–
modeling scenario?

Castelvecchi: Yes. It seems that that the more researchers look into
the local effects or regional effects of global warming, the more
complicated the picture gets. It's not simply, you're turning up the
thermostat everywhere, but there will be a lot of local variation on
the scene.

Steve: Which is that may make it more difficult to get the idea across
to the general public, if individual areas are going in different
directions but, you know, if that's the reality, that's the reality.

Castelvecchi: Very definitely. One of the general themes that people
have been sounding is that there will be winners and losers and so it
might be difficult ethically and politically to take substantial
action, because some people might be hesitant to forgo what would be
good times for them from global warming.

Steve: Right: if you own a golf course in Vermont, you are pro-global
warming. If you own a ski resort in Vermont, maybe not so much.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article
,
Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:
In article
,

*Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall * * * *"Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
* * * * * * * * * pays off now." *Anon

Google Groups is fine

Graham
Penzance

On Jul 10, 7:28*pm, Graham Easterling
wrote:
On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:

In article
,

*Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall * * * *"Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
* * * * * * * * * pays off now." *Anon

Google Groups is fine

Graham
Penzance

Yes I am reading this loud and clear. What made me suspicious was that
the Meteorlogical Institute web site in Hamburg is down
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Forum.5883.0.html?&L=3
and I had heard that the US government had been hacked into yesterday.

I was also trying to make the point that:

It seems that that the more researchers look into
the local effects or regional effects of global warming, the more
complicated the picture gets. It's not simply, you're turning up the
thermostat everywhere ... Which is what makes it more difficult
to get the idea across to the general public, with individual areas
going in different directions but, you know, if that's the reality,
that's the reality.

Lawrence seems to think that if the Arctic sea ice is melting then the
Antarctic ice should follow suit. In fact he seems to think that
because the Antarctic ice is expanding then the Arctic ice is too.
But then that is a member of the general public for you :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

In article
,
Graham Easterling writes:
On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:
In article
,

*Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)

Google Groups is fine

I saw that Alastair had posted using Google Groups, so I thought that
there might have a delay at present on new posts appearing there. Glad
to hear that there isn't.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 7:28 pm, Graham Easterling
wrote:
On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:

In article
,

Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

Google Groups is fine

Graham
Penzance

Yes I am reading this loud and clear. What made me suspicious was that
the Meteorlogical Institute web site in Hamburg is down
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Forum.5883.0.html?&L=3
and I had heard that the US government had been hacked into yesterday.

I was also trying to make the point that:

It seems that that the more researchers look into
the local effects or regional effects of global warming, the more
complicated the picture gets. It's not simply, you're turning up the
thermostat everywhere ... Which is what makes it more difficult
to get the idea across to the general public, with individual areas
going in different directions but, you know, if that's the reality,
that's the reality.

Lawrence seems to think that if the Arctic sea ice is melting then the
Antarctic ice should follow suit. In fact he seems to think that
because the Antarctic ice is expanding then the Arctic ice is too.
But then that is a member of the general public for you :-(

Cheers, Alastair.


I put it down to Ying and Yang the two new climate modellers the IPCC are
using.

On Jul 10, 8:11*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

...
On Jul 10, 7:28 pm, Graham Easterling
wrote:



On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:

In article
,

Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

Google Groups is fine

Graham
Penzance

Yes I am reading this loud and clear. What made me suspicious was that
the Meteorlogical Institute web site in Hamburg is downhttp://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Forum.5883.0.html?&L=3
and I had heard that the US government had been hacked into yesterday.

I was also trying to make the point that:

It seems that that the more researchers look into
the local effects or regional effects of global warming, the more
complicated the picture gets. It's not simply, you're turning up the
thermostat everywhere ... *Which is what makes it more difficult
to get the idea across to the general public, with individual areas
going in different directions but, you know, if that's the reality,
that's the reality.

Lawrence seems to think that if the Arctic sea ice is melting then the
Antarctic ice should follow suit. *In fact he seems to think that
because the Antarctic ice is expanding then the Arctic ice is too.
But then that is a member of the general public for you :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

I put it down to Ying and Yang the two new climate modellers the IPCC are
using.

No, you've got it completely wrong again. They are Yang and Ying.

BTW, that reminds me of my latest and greatest joke. I must tell you
because no one else seem to think it is funny :-(

The Bible for climate modelers is Goody and Yung (1996.) It is a
revision of an earlier book written by Goody on his own. But as you
probably know, the climate models are wrong, because although Goody
was aware that vibrational and kinetic temperatures could be different
he ignored that when deriving his source function. As a result the
models are failing to predict the rapid melting of the Arctic ice and
it is all Goody's fault. That means Goody is the baddie!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 8:11 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message

...
On Jul 10, 7:28 pm, Graham Easterling
wrote:



On 10 July, 18:31, John Hall wrote:

In article
,

Alastair writes:
Over the last few hours there seem to have been no posts. I am just
checking to see if the newsgroup has gone down like some other places
I have heard of.

The newsgroup is fine, but it's possible that Google Groups isn't.
(Hopefully you'll get to see this sooner or later!)
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

Google Groups is fine

Graham
Penzance

Yes I am reading this loud and clear. What made me suspicious was that
the Meteorlogical Institute web site in Hamburg is
downhttp://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Forum.5883.0.html?&L=3
and I had heard that the US government had been hacked into yesterday.

I was also trying to make the point that:

It seems that that the more researchers look into
the local effects or regional effects of global warming, the more
complicated the picture gets. It's not simply, you're turning up the
thermostat everywhere ... Which is what makes it more difficult
to get the idea across to the general public, with individual areas
going in different directions but, you know, if that's the reality,
that's the reality.

Lawrence seems to think that if the Arctic sea ice is melting then the
Antarctic ice should follow suit. In fact he seems to think that
because the Antarctic ice is expanding then the Arctic ice is too.
But then that is a member of the general public for you :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

I put it down to Ying and Yang the two new climate modellers the IPCC are
using.

No, you've got it completely wrong again. They are Yang and Ying.

BTW, that reminds me of my latest and greatest joke. I must tell you
because no one else seem to think it is funny :-(

The Bible for climate modelers is Goody and Yung (1996.) It is a
revision of an earlier book written by Goody on his own. But as you
probably know, the climate models are wrong, because although Goody
was aware that vibrational and kinetic temperatures could be different
he ignored that when deriving his source function. As a result the
models are failing to predict the rapid melting of the Arctic ice and
it is all Goody's fault. That means Goody is the baddie!

Cheers, Alastair.

Knowing the IPCC it was probably Jade Goody,