On Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:35:26 AM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
.







I stuck to 11-yr rolling mean to rule out any solar-cycle effect - not



that there seems to be much evidence of one. Of course, when I use a



shorter-length period, I get more of a saw-toothed graph - like the



HadCRUT - with a sharp rise starting in the mid-70s though it could be



argued from the 5-yr rolling mean that the real rise started in '67.



This looks as though it could be due to a difference in the data as '64



is easily the coldest year in that period according to GISS whilst the



HadCRUT graph suggests that '76 is the coldest.



Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.

.



On Sunday, 21 April 2013 11:09:34 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:25:50 +0100



Sutartsorric wrote:



On 2013-04-21 09:07:51 +0000, Graham P Davis said:







On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:58:47 +0100



Sutartsorric wrote:







SNIP



As Foster and Rahmstorf showed, the warming trend has not changed:







http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...6_4_044022.pdf







Well worth a read.







SNIP



However, I am worried that the authors take 1979 as the starting



point for their data because that is precisely when the sudden



upturn in warming began. The advantage to the pro-lobby is that



they dont have to explain the drop in global temperatures over the



previous 20 years. (This gives ammunition to the antis, and also



the GW agnostics such as myself.)







Nor does this 1979 starting point have to explain the sudden



switch from a slow fall to a rapid rise around the late 1970s.







I don't agree that 1979 marked the beginning of the sudden rise in



temperature. Looking at an 11-year rolling mean, the rise started



at the start of the 70s rather than at the end; the rise from 1971



to 1980 was 0.12C.











People mention the sudden surge in car ownership and the



installation of central heating in many first world countries,



installation but there is



supposed to be a ~20 year time lag between cause and effect, so



that would imply a sudden change of energy use around the late



1950s.







Again, going by the 11-year rolling mean, the fall in temperature



occurred during the 40s with a rise in the 50s and flat-lining in



the 60s. (1942-51 fell 0.12C, 1951-62 rose 0.08C, 1962-71 wobbled



between 0.01 and 0.02C below the 51-80 average).







When looking at the behaviour of global temperatures from



1940-1970, I think it might be worth looking at what was happening



to CO2 levels after the Great Depression. There was slowing down in



the increase in CO2 during the 30s and from 1940 there was even a



very slow fall. CO2 levels did not recover above the 1940 level



until 1948. I'm not saying this is largely to blame for the hiatus



in the rise in temperatures during the past century but it may have



had a part to play.







I was using these graphs for my statements:-







http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...e/HadCRUT4.png















Just shows what difference the smoothing method makes. ;-)







I'm also using GISS data as the Met Office data ignores the Arctic. Not



sure how they can get away with calling it 'global' when they make no



attempt to include the most important area. The GISS data is also stored



in a more convenient format.







I stuck to 11-yr rolling mean to rule out any solar-cycle effect - not



that there seems to be much evidence of one. Of course, when I use a



shorter-length period, I get more of a saw-toothed graph - like the



HadCRUT - with a sharp rise starting in the mid-70s though it could be



argued from the 5-yr rolling mean that the real rise started in '67.



This looks as though it could be due to a difference in the data as '64



is easily the coldest year in that period according to GISS whilst the



HadCRUT graph suggests that '76 is the coldest.



Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.









Graham



I thought Mauna Loa only started accurately measuring from 1956?



I also have to ask why do you see co2 as the only driver of climate when through our present ice age climate has driven co2. It's such a minute trace gas and the human contribution so small and yet you and others have tagged so much onto the AGW theory that yo cannot accept any other factors.



If the numerous studies of the Greenland and Antarctica ice core samples show that way before and animal on earth released co2 from fossil fuels and wood, peat etc. that the earth seemingly lurched into full scale glacial periods in as little as twenty years and all that with nasty humans

Oh dear. The "It's only a trace gas, so it must only have a trace effect" syndrome. Read and understand (doubtful) this and it will disabuse you of that notion. CO2's contribution to atmospheric warming has been known (though the amount has been refined) for 150 years:

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/...fraRadTran.pdf

PS If you don't think a trace amount can have a big effect, try sprinkling a tiny amount of ricin , or strychnine, on your sunday lunch. What a silly thing to say and it just shows ignorance about the science.

PPS No scientist sees CO2 as the only driver of climate. Why would you think they would?

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the
state we are in with regards to global warming.
http://vimeo.com/43012713
Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert
M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions.
I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at
variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic.
It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global
warming or whether it is the other way round.

Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...



There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the

state we are in with regards to global warming.

http://vimeo.com/43012713

Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(



Cheers, Alastair.



On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert

M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions.

I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at

variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic.

It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global

warming or whether it is the other way round.



Ian Bingham,

Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

"Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus.

This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have hardened markedly since then:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf

In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell (Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK, but an enormous sample):

What can we conclude from this study?

1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing global warming.

Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority, including Prof Bob Carter, don't.

"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...

Before I start am I allowed to take an anti panic view on this topic

without upsetting anyone and being called a right wing fascist? Just

want to get that clear.



Dear All,



Perhaps I should make it clear to everyone that the "debate" is not between
rival scientists, or between rival bloggers slagging each other off. It is
between sober respected scientists such as Stefan Rahmstorf

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/

and American right wing "think tanks" funded by bilionaires.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ktanks-network



The think tanks are using the same tactics, and in some cases the same
personnel, that were used by the tobacco industry. Just as it was not
possible to disprove that smoking caused cancer, it is also not possible to
disprove that CO2 is causing global warming. So their tactic is to rubbish
the scientists and throw doubt on the science. As long as the public do not
trust the scientists then the politicians cannot take action for fear of
losing office.



The point to realise is that the think tanks can use every dirty trick in
the book. The scientists must follow their unwritten code or find themselves
excluded from their profession.



One of the dirty tricks played by the sceptic bloggers is to insult the
science bloggers with abusive language hoping to inspire retaliation. (This
tactic is now common in football where slagging is used with the hope of
having an opponent sent off for retaliation.) In the climate debate this
works, resulting in posters here complaining about the debate being just a
boring slanging match, exactly the reaction that the sceptic think tanks
want.



And that is the impression that Lawrence's opening gambit reinforces - that
I am going to descend into political name calling. I posted a video about a
scientific fact. The ice sheets are melting and it will soon be impossible
to save them. I am not going to be dragged into a debate about whether
global warming is happening or about my or Lawrence's politics.



Cheers, Alastair.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 2:25:54 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...



On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ....







There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the



state we are in with regards to global warming.



http://vimeo.com/43012713



Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(







Cheers, Alastair.







On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert



M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different

conclusions.



I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much

at



variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed

topic.



It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global



warming or whether it is the other way round.







Ian Bingham,



Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.



"Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from a

particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your

comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus.



This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It also

mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have hardened

markedly since then:



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf



In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell

(Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and only

24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK, but an

enormous sample):



What can we conclude from this study?



1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement that

humans are causing global warming.



Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists don't

agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority, including Prof

Bob Carter, don't.





Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming?

If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists

so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one

would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for

myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am

instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type

of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us

with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to

read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind.



Ian Bingham,

Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

I didn't say they aren't at variance. I painted a very clear picture of just how big the consensus is from 2 studies and it looks like you don't like that. Did you read the studies? If you have evidence to the contrary, Show it instead of waving your arms about a lot and talking about "bandwagons" and self-righteous sticks (whatever they are).

PS Every scientist has an open mind. It's just that the incredibly vast majority don't keep it so open that they fall into it and they recognise the enormous consensus in favour of Co2 being the main driver of the current warming.

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 14:54:39 UTC+1, aka sutart-thingy yttiw wrote:
On 2013-04-21 13:25:54 +0000, Ian Bingham said:



"Dawlish" wrote in message

...



On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ....







There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the



state we are in with regards to global warming.



http://vimeo.com/43012713



Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(







Cheers, Alastair.







On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert



M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions.



I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at



variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic.



It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global



warming or whether it is the other way round.







Ian Bingham,



Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.



"Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from

a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your

comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus.



This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It

also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have

hardened markedly since then:



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf



In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell

(Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and

only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK,

but an enormous sample):



What can we conclude from this study?



1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement

that humans are causing global warming.



Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists

don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority,

including Prof Bob Carter, don't.





Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global

warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings

of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that

there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances.

Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see

any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve

noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a

self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent

of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I

have time for and keep an open mind.



Ian Bingham,

Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.



I think that is a very wise approach.



Especially as there are lots of people who stand to make billions from

us continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your house the one without solar panels.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:30:01 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Sunday, 21 April 2013 14:54:39 UTC+1, aka sutart-thingy yttiw wrote:

On 2013-04-21 13:25:54 +0000, Ian Bingham said:







"Dawlish" wrote in message



...







On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:



"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...















There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the







state we are in with regards to global warming.







http://vimeo.com/43012713







Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(















Cheers, Alastair.















On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert







M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions.







I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at







variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic.







It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global







warming or whether it is the other way round.















Ian Bingham,







Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.







"Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from



a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your



comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus.







This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It



also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have



hardened markedly since then:







http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf







In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell



(Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and



only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK,



but an enormous sample):







What can we conclude from this study?







1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement



that humans are causing global warming.







Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists



don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority,



including Prof Bob Carter, don't.











Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global



warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings



of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that



there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances.



Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see



any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve



noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a



self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent



of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I



have time for and keep an open mind.







Ian Bingham,



Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.







I think that is a very wise approach.







Especially as there are lots of people who stand to make billions from



us continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels.



Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your house the one without solar panels.

Oh dear. That just reflects the climate denier position perfectly. A combination of almost total ignorance combined with outright indignation that people could possibly understand more than they do.

It's funny that anyone could react in this way and I'm so pleased that no-one with an ounce of influence listens to people like this when they spout this stuff, but I'm even more pleased that my grandchildren's children's future is not in the hands of people like this.

Lawrence13 scrive:


Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time
you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up
despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because
we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your
house the one without solar panels.

That reminds me, I have to fill up tomorrow. Rumour has it that the price
has fallen by two cents per litre. Yay ... more miles to the pound.

"We've got fuel to burn, we got roads to drive. Keep on rockin' in the
free world."

Oh well, back to work. I can finish at 1700 on a Sunday. Lucky me.

--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

On 2013-04-21 14:30:01 +0000, Lawrence13 said:

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 14:54:39 UTC+1, aka sutart-thingy yttiw wrote:


I think that is a very wise approach.



Especially as there are lots of people who stand to make billions
from us continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time
you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up
despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because
we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your
house the one without solar panels.

Hmmmm.

One of my cars? How many do you think I have?

Or are you just fishing for info so that you can deduce what kind of
tactics are needed to humiliate my kind of person?
At least you seem to have given up your wonderful idea that I am
Dawlish posting under another name. Are your guesses always that wide
of the mark?

As for solar panels, I was all for them but when the man came around to
give me a quote he said that because the house faced south-east, and
the house next door is slightly set back from the line of mine, the
roof was not ideally situated for an installation that would pay for
itself.

On Sunday, 21 April 2013 15:57:39 UTC+1, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-04-21 14:30:01 +0000, Lawrence13 said:



On Sunday, 21 April 2013 14:54:39 UTC+1, aka sutart-thingy yttiw wrote:





I think that is a very wise approach.







Especially as there are lots of people who stand to make billions

from us continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels.



Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time

you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up

despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because

we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your

house the one without solar panels.



Hmmmm.



One of my cars? How many do you think I have?



Or are you just fishing for info so that you can deduce what kind of

tactics are needed to humiliate my kind of person?

At least you seem to have given up your wonderful idea that I am

Dawlish posting under another name. Are your guesses always that wide

of the mark?



As for solar panels, I was all for them but when the man came around to

give me a quote he said that because the house faced south-east, and

the house next door is slightly set back from the line of mine, the

roof was not ideally situated for an installation that would pay for

itself.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see you've used my witty suggestion yttiw.