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

Something different is happening, in 2007 the low ebb of Arctic Ice gave
succour to every doomsayer and yet it is now it's heading to the known
global average. Why is UKMO ignoring this?

I say UKMO as several years ago that organisation became the champion for
AGW, now what does it say bar silence?

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

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

Something different is happening, in 2007 the low ebb of Arctic Ice gave
succour to every doomsayer and yet it is now it's heading to the known
global average. Why is UKMO ignoring this?

I say UKMO as several years ago that organisation became the champion for
AGW, now what does it say bar silence?


Presumably, Lawrence, because it's now considered to be "weather"
related , rather than AGW related.

On 30/04/10 23:04, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

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

Something different is happening, in 2007 the low ebb of Arctic Ice gave
succour to every doomsayer and yet it is now it's heading to the known
global average. Why is UKMO ignoring this?

I say UKMO as several years ago that organisation became the champion for
AGW, now what does it say bar silence?


Presumably, Lawrence, because it's now considered to be "weather"
related , rather than AGW related.

Also, the "normal" is entirely within the period of the recent steep
rise in global temperatures and does not represent the change that has
occurred during the past forty years. Lawrence also forgets that the ice
is half as thick as it was forty years ago.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On 1 May, 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 30/04/10 23:04, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

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

Something different is happening, in 2007 the low ebb of Arctic Ice gave
succour to every doomsayer and yet it is now it's heading to the known
global average. Why is UKMO ignoring this?

I say UKMO as several years ago that organisation became the champion for
AGW, now what does it say bar silence?

Presumably, Lawrence, because it's now considered to be "weather"
related , rather than AGW related.

Also, the "normal" is entirely within the period of the recent steep
rise in global temperatures and does not represent the change that has
occurred during the past forty years. Lawrence also forgets that the ice
is half as thick as it was forty years ago.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

And most people also forget that there was no ice at all on previous
occasions, hence tools and implements being discovered under ice,
where, evidently there was none when the implements were lost or
abandoned. Ice comes and goes. It's been much historically much
warmer, it's been much colder, too. All without the "assistance" of
mankind. It's natural fluctuation and variation. A trace atmospheric
gas has little or no influence compared with other, more prominent
criteria. Climate variation happens, has always happened and always
will happen sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Nothing to see here.

CK

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/10 23:04, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

is half as thick as it was forty years ago.

--
There's no need to get personal Graham.

On 01/05/10 10:57, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/10 23:04, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

is half as thick as it was forty years ago.

--
There's no need to get personal Graham.



LOL

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On 1 May, 10:12, Natsman wrote:
On 1 May, 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:



On 30/04/10 23:04, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

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

Something different is happening, in 2007 the low ebb of Arctic Ice gave
succour to every doomsayer and yet it is now it's heading to the known
global average. Why is UKMO ignoring this?

I say UKMO as several years ago that organisation became the champion for
AGW, now what does it say bar silence?

Presumably, Lawrence, because it's now considered to be "weather"
related , rather than AGW related.

Also, the "normal" is entirely within the period of the recent steep
rise in global temperatures and does not represent the change that has
occurred during the past forty years. Lawrence also forgets that the ice
is half as thick as it was forty years ago.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

And most people also forget that there was no ice at all on previous
occasions, hence tools and implements being discovered under ice,
where, evidently there was none when the implements were lost or
abandoned. *Ice comes and goes. It's been much historically much
warmer, it's been much colder, too. *All without the "assistance" of
mankind. *It's natural fluctuation and variation. A trace atmospheric
gas has little or no influence compared with other, more prominent
criteria. *Climate variation happens, has always happened and always
will happen sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. *Nothing to see here.

CK

Same old regurgitated cliches - (yawn)

" wrote in message
...
On 1 May, 10:12, Natsman wrote:
On 1 May, 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:



On 30/04/10 23:04, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:32:57 +0100, "Lawrence Jenkins"
wrote:

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

Something different is happening, in 2007 the low ebb of Arctic Ice
gave
succour to every doomsayer and yet it is now it's heading to the
known
global average. Why is UKMO ignoring this?

I say UKMO as several years ago that organisation became the champion
for
AGW, now what does it say bar silence?

Presumably, Lawrence, because it's now considered to be "weather"
related , rather than AGW related.

Also, the "normal" is entirely within the period of the recent steep
rise in global temperatures and does not represent the change that has
occurred during the past forty years. Lawrence also forgets that the ice
is half as thick as it was forty years ago.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

And most people also forget that there was no ice at all on previous
occasions, hence tools and implements being discovered under ice,
where, evidently there was none when the implements were lost or
abandoned. Ice comes and goes. It's been much historically much
warmer, it's been much colder, too. All without the "assistance" of
mankind. It's natural fluctuation and variation. A trace atmospheric
gas has little or no influence compared with other, more prominent
criteria. Climate variation happens, has always happened and always
will happen sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Nothing to see here.

CK

Same old regurgitated cliches - (yawn)

Cuddles, time for a news group hug .......

On 01/05/10 10:12, Natsman wrote:


And most people also forget that there was no ice at all on previous
occasions, hence tools and implements being discovered under ice,
where, evidently there was none when the implements were lost or
abandoned. Ice comes and goes. It's been much historically much
warmer, it's been much colder, too. All without the "assistance" of
mankind. It's natural fluctuation and variation. A trace atmospheric
gas has little or no influence compared with other, more prominent
criteria. Climate variation happens, has always happened and always
will happen sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Nothing to see here.



In 1975, two scientific documents were published. One was an in-depth
investigation into natural climatic variability and the other was a
computer forecast of effects of doubling CO2. Lets see how these match
up with reality. In both cases, I've compared predictions that can be
made from these publications with the global temperature anomaly from
1951-80 for an 11-year mean centred on 2004 (so as to iron out
year-to-year variability and rule out any effects of sunspot cycles)

(1) The research by the Global Atmospheric Research Project (GARP),
examined paleoclimatic records spanning the past 700,000 years. From
this, they derived five periodic functions. These functions can be used
to predict future developments in global temperatures.

The forecast anomaly is -0.21C, i.e. according to the natural cycles, it
would now be that much colder than in the period 1951-80.

(2) The computer model was run for the northern hemisphere only. The
temperature changes at the surface range from +2C in the Tropics to more
than +10C north of 80N. It also predicted a fall in temperature above
20Km. The global temperature increase derived from this was +3C for a
doubling of CO2.

Looking at the graph of temperatures, it appears to me that they must
have assumed that the value would be the same in the southern hemisphere
as for the north. Seems to me that a value of +2.5C is a better
interpretation of the model forecast. To get that result, I've assumed a
southern hemisphere with overall values similar to the tropics.

Using a value of +3C would result in a forecast anomaly of +0.54C for
2004. My value of +2.5C returns a forecast of +0.45C

Summary:
We have forecasts of an anomaly for 2004 of -0.21C from natural cycles
and +0.45C to +0.54C from effects of CO2. The actual 11-year mean
centred on 2004 was +0.50C.

Now which tipster would you put your money on in future?


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

In article 428e0f73-d6f4-44b2-bc9c-
,
says...
Climate variation happens, has always happened and always
will happen sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Nothing to see here.


And never from Natsman, any fragment of understanding of exactly what
"change" means to human society.

I can just imagine Natsman, some time in the future, "5km wide asteroids
have always been hitting us. Nothing to see here"

--
Alan LeHun