On Jun 18, 12:48*am, Jim Kewley wrote:
In message
,
Lawrence13 writes

of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

What darker forces are they Lawrence? *Interesting or wot?

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

The list is long.

Cheers

--

Jim

I'm listening

On Jun 18, 12:14*am, Alastair wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:42*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:





In article aaa64d96-a53b-45a5-9003-
,
says...

*What I am saying is if you wait until they are
convinced that global warming is happening before we take action, then
we will all end up living in caves :-(

What realistic action do you think can be taken, that would make more of
a difference than say a small delay in the inevietable?

All this talk of 'action' is little more than pie in the sky at this
stage, and probably has been for 30 years or so...

--
Alan LeHun

The first thing we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels like there
is no tomorrow. That means going back to life like our grandfathers,
who did not live in caves and were just as happy (and as miserable as
Lawrence and his friends over the water) as we are :-)

The second thing is we have to do is forget about growth. .Growth can
only go on for so long. Resources are finite. Oil, the secret of our
indolent lifestyle, is now running out. When we have used it all up,
then we will have to go back to using coal. Unless we use miners (Who
now would do that job?) it means oven cast mining, *i.e. destruction
of mountain ranges and less agricultural land. But we need that land
to feed a growing global population. We in the UK are consuming twice
the productivity of the biosphere per head of population. In the USA
it is three times. *As global population increases then, if our
standard of living remains the same, our personal share of global
resources will increase, and the others will consume more as they try
to reach our standard of living.

But the truth hurts, as will our readjustment, if we attempt it. But
it will hurt even more if we wait for the inevitable.

Cheers, (a tipsy) Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alastair I do like you, although very passionate about AGW , you are
also a gentleman. I believe you are beginning to win me over, as I was
going to light a candle for you and then thought of the consequences.

No seriously I do believe we humans who live in the developed
countries do take energy totally for granted and if I began to believe
that Co2 increase was going to be a big, big problem then I would be
depressed because most people are just not responsible enough. I've
had a good friend over the years and although politically I've made
that journey from the left to reality he still reads his Guardian and
laps up the British Bias Company we have never up until recently
discussed AGW. However for the first time a couple of weeks back he
raised the issue. he started going on about how we need to save finite
resources and not waste energy. Now I totally agreed with this and
just started to tell him how the house next door which has been
converted into six flats has no washing line. He then interjected and
said that he's never used a washing line for drying in his whole life.
I asked why not and he said it was too much effort for him and his
wife to hang the stuff out in the garden.
So you see I'm being lectured about the need to save resources and yet
the lecturer is far more wasteful than the person receiving the
sermon. And as I said there are 7-8 mature so called sensible adults
next door to me with a massive garden and not one person uses the
washing line -in fact there is no washing line.

Now where I work there are lots of homes in the community which are
staffed and over the last twenty years I have never seen any laundry
out to dry-its all done by tumble dryers and invariably the heating is
on throughout the summer months let alone winter, in fact the method
for cooling is to leave the heating on and open all the windows and
doors -throughout the year. I have to say that in my experience the
ones who tend to shout loudest about climate change are the biggest
wasters of energy. Take Southwark council even when strimming local
parks there workforce use petrol blowers to collect the cuttings ,
what's wrong with a broom yet Southwark has always been a Labour
Borough and would happily increase council tax to fight climate
change. And trying not to be too controversial but the biggest
wasters of domestic energy tend to be immigrants who constantly feel
cold and thick non working class people.

So if I come across from the dark side if the evidence began to mount
that Co2 was heading us for disaster then I wouldn't hold out any hope
whatsoever as most couldn't care less.

One more example: My mother lives under Bromley Council and is off
that age when British citizens felt a sense of duty, so when Bromley
Council demand recycling boy does she do that with gusto. So we get a
situation where as soon a the butter has been used then the hot tap
gets turned on lots of gas and then detergent so she can clean the
plastic tub before it goes into the plastics bin. Great use of energy
there I must say.

Me though I'm a champion of energy conservation, lids on saucepan etc
why I even use the hot water with which I've boiled some eggs to go
towards the washing up and now some more energy conservation I'm going
to shut up.

On Jun 17, 7:40*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:26 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Jun 17, 8:27 am, Paul *wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 at 22:24:34, duffel coat
*wrote in uk.sci.weather :
On 16/06/2011 10:06 PM, Dawlish wrote:
You asked for an opinion. I gave you one. If you don't like it. don't
ask. This is complete BS. If it isn't; show me how.
* denier
I bet I'm not the only GW sceptic who is tired the 'denier' label, with
its hidden subtext of being almost equivalent to 'holocaust denier'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
* * * It depends what you're sceptical about. *If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. *If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.
That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

Frankly, you are not in a position to do so. *Neither am I and nor is
almost everyone else on this group; it's a very technical subject, not
a belief or philosophy. *The only scepticism one can justify is to
query some of the doom-laden predictions one reads in the press
because these are nearly always made by people with little knowledge
of the subject.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet..
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

----------------------
I'd quite like to stake a claim for the Scandinavians - they never get
on their High horse these days.
Dave

I have to say I don't have any problem with the USA or Americans on
this, it's more an issue with conservatives with ulterior motives
across the globe.
Given how true-blue southern England is, much more so than many parts
of the USA to be honest (Denver, which I'm visiting later this year,
appears to be - in governance - significantly more left-leaning than
my home town of Southampton, now sadly a Tory stronghold but I won't
go into a long rant about that and its effects...) I don't think we
can single out America as a whole.

Nick

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:48:39 -0700, Lawrence13 wrote:

Alastair I do like you, although very passionate about AGW , you are
also a gentleman. I believe you are beginning to win me over, as I was
going to light a candle for you and then thought of the consequences.

Nice one!

I was just typing a response to say how worried I was that I agreed with
with almost everything you said in your reply to Alastair when the
circuit-breaker cut the power and shut down the PC, Seems you have
critics everywhere, Lawrence, even in the inanimate world.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.

On Jun 18, 1:54*pm, Nick wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:40*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:





Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:26 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Jun 17, 8:27 am, Paul *wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 at 22:24:34, duffel coat
*wrote in uk.sci.weather :
On 16/06/2011 10:06 PM, Dawlish wrote:
You asked for an opinion. I gave you one. If you don't like it. don't
ask. This is complete BS. If it isn't; show me how.
* denier
I bet I'm not the only GW sceptic who is tired the 'denier' label, with
its hidden subtext of being almost equivalent to 'holocaust denier'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
* * * It depends what you're sceptical about. *If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. *If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.
That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

Frankly, you are not in a position to do so. *Neither am I and nor is
almost everyone else on this group; it's a very technical subject, not
a belief or philosophy. *The only scepticism one can justify is to
query some of the doom-laden predictions one reads in the press
because these are nearly always made by people with little knowledge
of the subject.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

----------------------
I'd quite like to stake a claim for the Scandinavians - they never get
on their High horse these days.
Dave

I have to say I don't have any problem with the USA or Americans on
this, it's more an issue with conservatives with ulterior motives
across the globe.
Given how true-blue southern England is, much more so than many parts
of the USA to be honest (Denver, which I'm visiting later this year,
appears to be - in governance - significantly more left-leaning than
my home town of Southampton, now sadly a Tory stronghold but I won't
go into a long rant about that and its effects...) I don't think we
can single out America as a whole.

Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Denver is a wonderful city. *)) Very different to many other Americal
cities too. You are right; to single out Americans would be unfair, as
they, through their president, have the major say in CO2 changes ATM
(China and India soon) and they are carefully leading the world and
doing it reasonably well. The appalling tactics of some Americans,
reflected in some in this country and other countries, tries to hold
that back, for a multitude of often nefarious reasons. Few of those
reasons are connected to science.

On 17/06/2011 18:48, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:26:40 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:

It depends what you're sceptical about. If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.

That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

Could you point me to some references? My impression was that the
consensus was that changes in insolation were fairly small and had had
little effect on temperature. Also, I don't see how insolation can have
warmed the tropopshere yet cooled the higher atmosphere. That cooling was
only predicted by CO2 theory as far as I know.

It can't. Both effects are present to varying degrees at different times
- for most of this period the effect of GHG forcing was almost
negligible. It is only in the last half century that AGW and GHG
forcings *have* had to be included to make the energy equations balance.
Satellite data constrain the wilder fantasies of hand waving rightards
who want to magic the sun brighter and deny AGW.

Baliunas & Soon 1996 is one of the better Solar Irradiance Variability
papers and the references therein provide additional background.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/.../34083.web.pdf

Note that they are sceptics but their attempts to show it is only the
suns output changing do not stand up to the experimental data.

Solar activity was high during the post-war period when slight cooling of
the troposphere occurred and during the early part of the rise from 1970
to around '85 but has been falling slowly since then. I find it hard to
see much correlation between solar activity and temperature changes.

Correlation models do seem to find enough of one to explain a decent
proportion of the climate variability (but not all and in particular
they become a very bad fit after about 1970). NB Baliunas & Soon are
sceptics but at least in the scientific literature they are honest
(something which is not guaranteed elsewhere).

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

I took an interest in climate cycles around forty years ago but don't
recall a 60-yr cycle. A large study of cycles published in 1975 had a 100-
yr cycle peaking near 1940 but nothing shorter. Other research I heard of
in the late 60s also found 100-yr cycles, both globally and locally. From
these, we were supposed to cool globally until 1990 and the UK was
supposed to experience cold springs from 1970 to 2020. In my experience,
cycles are relatively easy to see in past data but are really unreliable
when extrapolated into the future.

That is always a risk. However there are several driving forces in
oceanic circulation that can behave as powerful heat shunts and go by
the unappealing name of Multidecadal oscillations. The big ones being in
the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

Will do as an introduction.

There is a roughly 60 year slow component and a lot of "noise" by which
I mean unexplained variance. There is much haggling over the root cause.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

I haven't extrapolated that temperature rise. However, I have used a 1980
prediction of the likely effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. The
graph of the predicted rise is a reasonable match to that which has
occurred. It's certainly better than the prediction from climate
cycles. ;-)

See http://tinyurl.com/66jsa5k

Whose model is that? They are clearly barking up the wrong lamp post!
(and most likely they think it is a tree)

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 17/06/2011 19:10, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:26 pm, Martin
wrote:

The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.

It happens to be true. There is a large supply of fat ugly Americans
that eat massive amounts of junk food, take no exercise with about a
third of them now clinically obese and a third merely overweight. A
nation full of lazy fat slobs that refuse even to look after their own
bodies can hardly be expected to care about the health of the planet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...50863H20090109

Fit lean people are now in a minority in the USA. There are harder line
opinions on the state of Americans waistlines even in the USA for
example the most extreme view that people like Beck on Fox News takes :

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009140042
(starts from about half way through the clip)

People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

America is a bimodal population - there are some lean fit Americans and
I would far rather that they represented the USA in military matters.

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

I have nothing against reasonable Americans. It is the pathological
lying Neocons, Young Earth Creationists and Tea Party nutters that I
really have it in for (ie most of the Republican party).

I am not that impressed with Obama either - note how quickly he attacked
*BRITISH* Petroleum (aka BP) for the oil spill to deflect criticism from
his own administration. So much for the "special" relationship (now
rebranded "essential" as in "no choice").

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Jun 20, 10:05*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/06/2011 19:10, Lawrence13 wrote:





On Jun 17, 4:26 pm, Martin
wrote:

The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet..
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.

It happens to be true. There is a large supply of fat ugly Americans
that eat massive amounts of junk food, take no exercise with about a
third of them now clinically obese and a third merely overweight. A
nation full of lazy fat slobs that refuse even to look after their own
bodies can hardly be expected to care about the health of the planet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...a-idUSTRE50863...

Fit lean people are now in a minority in the USA. There are harder line
opinions on the state of Americans waistlines even in the USA for
example the most extreme view that people like Beck on Fox News takes :

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009140042
(starts from about half way through the clip)



I agree whole heartedly with the Obama remarks. The most left wing
American administration possibly ever were like the labour party did
with the fox hunting bill-trying to bash Britain (NOT BP) and appeal
to environmentalists left lobby (anti oil) and dress it up as American
patriotism (war of independence). Truth is the moratorium on(unsafe
environmentally damaging) deep water off shore oil drilling in the
gulf has only served to lose tens of thousands of jobs and help push
up fuel prices in the US. Ironically the Obama regime then invested 2
billion dollars in unsafe environmentally dangerous deep water off-
shore oil drilling in Brazil.

Now back to your generalised sweeping comments about the US: Having
once been on the left side of life it went without saying that you
hated America with a passion they were worse than China, Russia, North
Korea let alone Iraq, Iran and hosts of almost hundreds of oppressive
regimes around the world. I often meet west Africans Ghanaians and
Nigerians in particular who will readily run down the US while
waiting and hoping to immigrate there I mean even Muslims want to live
there in the bosom of the great Satan.


By the way I love the tea party movement and what it stands for
'smaller government, more personal responsibility and a massive
reduction in government debt which currently stands at 14 trillion
dollars and rising the currency is being devalued at an alarming rate
with and is heading for a crisis which if comes to pass will satisfy
every AGW with a world economic implosion causing far more damage to
the windmills of the AGW's minds ever thought possible as a result of
AGW.


Just one last point: as you so crudely put it: .

"There is a large supply of fat ugly Americans that eat massive
amounts of junk food, take no exercise with about a third of them now
clinically obese and a third merely overweight. A nation full of lazy
fat slobs that refuse even to look after their own bodies can hardly
be expected to care about the health of the planet."

So this applies to most Americans? We know that there is this problem
in a country where food has been historically cheap. But how does that
compare with some other countries some of which are supposedly at risk
from greedy America's co2 output threatening their sea levels.
Actually the BBC did a documentary some several years ago about the
islands of Tuvalu which represents some of the lowest inhabited at
risk populated islands in the world. I remember the serious faced
concerned presenter amongst flashes of George Bush and the American
car industry being flashed on the screen whilst he spoke of the
islands being submerged not too long in the future. And then we met
the islanders who were very rich (holiday trade) and were all morbidly
obese (hate that term) and get this........drove massive big four
wheel cars on islands you could walk around in twenty minutes!!!!!!!

Of course that irony was lost on the BBC, as it was totally obscured
by its massive anti American agenda

But moving onto obesity and your hatred of America due to its
fatgitism lets compare to the fatty list

1 Nauru 94.5
2. Micronesia, Federated States of 91.1
3. Cook Islands 90.9
4. Tonga 90.8
5. Niue 81.7
6. Samoa 80.4
7. Palau 78.4
8. Kuwait 74.2
9. United States 74.1

By the way Britain is in 27th place at just 10% lower rate of
population .


So on the basis of that those countries higher in obesity rates than
America deserve our contempt and hatred .


Let's stay with America though as you hate the Tea Party and the fact
they are all fat useless slobs. I can only guess from your remarks
that all tea party members are overweight, white and right-wing, Well
the highest obesity rates in the US are amongst blacks and Hispanics
" Blacks had 51% higher and Hispanics had 21% higher rates of
obesity." http://trialx.com/curetalk/2011/03/o...wing-epidemic/
So Martin based on weight issues you hate the black and Hispanic
population and purely based on politics and they are that you hate
the tea party movement and America full stop due to you very left wing
view of the world.

Just to conclude: Criticism of Americans being overweight, now what
did you say, ah yes
" A nation full of lazy fat slobs that refuse even to look after
their own bodies can hardly be expected to care about the health of
the planet."

And of course when Scotland gets independence they'll lead by example
from the land of the fried mars bar. See below an ' inconvenient
haggis'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-obesity.html


People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

America is a bimodal population - there are some lean fit Americans and
I would far rather that they represented the USA in military matters.



Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

I have nothing against reasonable Americans. It is the pathological
lying Neocons, Young Earth Creationists and Tea Party nutters that I
really have it in for (ie most of the Republican party).

I am not that impressed with Obama either - note how quickly he attacked
*BRITISH* Petroleum (aka BP) for the oil spill to deflect criticism from
his own administration. So much for the "special" relationship (now
rebranded "essential" as in "no choice").

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:24:44 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to
a periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

I took an interest in climate cycles around forty years ago but don't
recall a 60-yr cycle. A large study of cycles published in 1975 had a
100- yr cycle peaking near 1940 but nothing shorter. Other research I
heard of in the late 60s also found 100-yr cycles, both globally and
locally. From these, we were supposed to cool globally until 1990 and
the UK was supposed to experience cold springs from 1970 to 2020. In my
experience, cycles are relatively easy to see in past data but are
really unreliable when extrapolated into the future.

That is always a risk. However there are several driving forces in
oceanic circulation that can behave as powerful heat shunts and go by
the unappealing name of Multidecadal oscillations. The big ones being in
the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

Will do as an introduction.

There is a roughly 60 year slow component and a lot of "noise" by which
I mean unexplained variance. There is much haggling over the root cause.


Yes, Id forgotten that interpretation of the PDO. Probably because I keep
trying to forget it but keep being reminded. I just wish everyone else
would forget it. ;-)

When I first came across it, I couldn't understand how anyone could say
that there was a 60-yr cycle when they only had 92 years of data. I
wouldn't blame the original researchers as I recall that cycle was
advertised by some Professor with an axe to grind who wanted us to
believe that the PDO was about to go into a cold phase for 30 years.

I was also a little doubtful about the "Reconstructed PDO." I've not been
a great fan of relating tree rings to temperature even when they're for
the same place so I thought this was pushing the boat out too far - into
the middle of the N Pacific in fact. They say there was a good fit in the
overlap with the PDO and whilst that is true for 1940-90, it's no match
at all from 1900-30.


So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating
from the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the
problem.

I haven't extrapolated that temperature rise. However, I have used a
1980 prediction of the likely effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere.
The graph of the predicted rise is a reasonable match to that which has
occurred. It's certainly better than the prediction from climate
cycles. ;-)

See http://tinyurl.com/66jsa5k

Whose model is that? They are clearly barking up the wrong lamp post!
(and most likely they think it is a tree)


The work on climate cycles was published in 1975 by GARP (Global
Atmospheric Research Project). It was based on 700,000 years of data and
studies by the best climatologists of the time, including H H Lamb. It
was meant to be a guide to future climate. I've lost the link for the
moment but will try and get it for you.

If work on climate cycles based on 700,000 years of data goes tits up as
soon as it is published, what chance is there for one based on 92 years
data?

Thanks for the Solar Irradiance link. I'll


--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.

On Jun 20, 7:06*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:24:44 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to
a periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

I took an interest in climate cycles around forty years ago but don't
recall a 60-yr cycle. A large study of cycles published in 1975 had a
100- yr cycle peaking near 1940 but nothing shorter. Other research I
heard of in the late 60s also found 100-yr cycles, both globally and
locally. From these, we were supposed to cool globally until 1990 and
the UK was supposed to experience cold springs from 1970 to 2020. In my
experience, cycles are relatively easy to see in past data but are
really unreliable when extrapolated into the future.

That is always a risk. However there are several driving forces in
oceanic circulation that can behave as powerful heat shunts and go by
the unappealing name of Multidecadal oscillations. The big ones being in
the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...oscillationand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific...al_oscillation

Will do as an introduction.

There is a roughly 60 year slow component and a lot of "noise" by which
I mean unexplained variance. There is much haggling over the root cause..

Yes, Id forgotten that interpretation of the PDO. Probably because I keep
trying to forget it but keep being reminded. I just wish everyone else
would forget it. *;-)

When I first came across it, I couldn't understand how anyone could say
that there was a 60-yr cycle when they only had 92 years of data. I
wouldn't blame the original researchers as I recall that cycle was
advertised by some Professor with an axe to grind who wanted us to
believe that the PDO was about to go into a cold phase for 30 years.

I was also a little doubtful about the "Reconstructed PDO." I've not been
a great fan of relating tree rings to temperature even when they're for
the same place so I thought this was pushing the boat out too far - into
the middle of the N Pacific in fact. They say there was a good fit in the
overlap with the PDO and whilst that is true for 1940-90, it's no match
at all from 1900-30.





So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating
from the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the
problem.

I haven't extrapolated that temperature rise. However, I have used a
1980 prediction of the likely effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere..
The graph of the predicted rise is a reasonable match to that which has
occurred. It's certainly better than the prediction from climate
cycles. *;-)

Seehttp://tinyurl.com/66jsa5k

Whose model is that? They are clearly barking up the wrong lamp post!
(and most likely they think it is a tree)

The work on climate cycles was published in 1975 by GARP (Global
Atmospheric Research Project). It was based on 700,000 years of data and
studies by the best climatologists of the time, including H H Lamb. It
was meant to be a guide to future climate. I've lost the link for the
moment but will try and get it for you.

If work on climate cycles based on 700,000 years of data goes tits up as
soon as it is published, what chance is there for one based on 92 years
data?

Thanks for the Solar Irradiance link. I'll

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree about the PDO Graham, but Roy Spencer still gives a lot of
credence to it - not that I give that much credence to his attempts to
downgrade the possible effects of CO2 on climate at every
opportunity.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

If you scroll down far enough you'll find it, as well as quite a few
other ways that CO2 can't be responsible for warming. He's missed out
his wholly scientific views on creation though. Shame.