In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.


--
Visit my weather station at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/Cumulus/index.htm

Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:40:45 GMT
Martin Dixon wrote:

In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

And you know more about climatology than 98% of climatologists?


But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.



Natural cycles predicted that the global temperatures would be colder
now than at any time since the early 19th century. So much for that
theory!

How about some of the other non-CO2 ideas for explaining away global
warming?

Solar output has been falling whilst global temperatures have been
rising so I think that's another theory that can be consigned to file
13. Mind you, Brooks managed to do that before the Festival of Britain.

According to one of Lawrence's heroes, Joe *******i, global temperatures
would fall back to normal during the negative cycle of the PDO. That
index started dropping in the early 80s but air temperatures kept
going up.


As no natural explanations even get the temperature graph pointing in
the right direction, what about CO2 theory?

CO2 theory correctly predicted the rate of global warming over the past
forty years.

CO2 theory also predicted that the stratosphere would cool. It did.

CO2 theory predicted that the Arctic would warm much faster than the
rest of the globe. It has.

Taking predictions made about forty years ago, only those based on CO2
theory have proved correct.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 17:51:47 UTC, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.


--
Visit my weather station at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/Cumulus/index.htm

Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

Come and join the dark side. Actually the AGW's are the 'Dark side' as we'll have no bleedin' electricity if they get their way.

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 18:50:44 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:40:45 GMT
Martin Dixon wrote:

In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

And you know more about climatology than 98% of climatologists?


But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.



Natural cycles predicted that the global temperatures would be colder
now than at any time since the early 19th century. So much for that
theory!

How about some of the other non-CO2 ideas for explaining away global
warming?

Solar output has been falling whilst global temperatures have been
rising so I think that's another theory that can be consigned to file
13. Mind you, Brooks managed to do that before the Festival of Britain.

According to one of Lawrence's heroes, Joe *******i, global temperatures
would fall back to normal during the negative cycle of the PDO. That
index started dropping in the early 80s but air temperatures kept
going up.


As no natural explanations even get the temperature graph pointing in
the right direction, what about CO2 theory?

CO2 theory correctly predicted the rate of global warming over the past
forty years.

CO2 theory also predicted that the stratosphere would cool. It did.

CO2 theory predicted that the Arctic would warm much faster than the
rest of the globe. It has.

Taking predictions made about forty years ago, only those based on CO2
theory have proved correct.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

The last interglacial was a lot warmer so far than this one. Hippopotami on grazing the Thames and all that, maybe we haven't seen them because of the obesity police. Fat chance of getting the police to actually deal with crime.

in 434962 20160326 205558 Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 26 March 2016 18:50:44 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:40:45 GMT
Martin Dixon wrote:

In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

And you know more about climatology than 98% of climatologists?


But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.



Natural cycles predicted that the global temperatures would be colder
now than at any time since the early 19th century. So much for that
theory!

How about some of the other non-CO2 ideas for explaining away global
warming?

Solar output has been falling whilst global temperatures have been
rising so I think that's another theory that can be consigned to file
13. Mind you, Brooks managed to do that before the Festival of Britain.

According to one of Lawrence's heroes, Joe *******i, global temperatures
would fall back to normal during the negative cycle of the PDO. That
index started dropping in the early 80s but air temperatures kept
going up.


As no natural explanations even get the temperature graph pointing in
the right direction, what about CO2 theory?

CO2 theory correctly predicted the rate of global warming over the past
forty years.

CO2 theory also predicted that the stratosphere would cool. It did.

CO2 theory predicted that the Arctic would warm much faster than the
rest of the globe. It has.

Taking predictions made about forty years ago, only those based on CO2
theory have proved correct.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

The last interglacial was a lot warmer so far than this one. Hippopotami on grazing the Thames and
all that,

The Thames was in a different part of the planet then.

On Sunday, 27 March 2016 10:29:17 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 434962 20160326 205558 Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 26 March 2016 18:50:44 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:40:45 GMT
Martin Dixon wrote:

In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

And you know more about climatology than 98% of climatologists?


But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.



Natural cycles predicted that the global temperatures would be colder
now than at any time since the early 19th century. So much for that
theory!

How about some of the other non-CO2 ideas for explaining away global
warming?

Solar output has been falling whilst global temperatures have been
rising so I think that's another theory that can be consigned to file
13. Mind you, Brooks managed to do that before the Festival of Britain.

According to one of Lawrence's heroes, Joe *******i, global temperatures
would fall back to normal during the negative cycle of the PDO. That
index started dropping in the early 80s but air temperatures kept
going up.


As no natural explanations even get the temperature graph pointing in
the right direction, what about CO2 theory?

CO2 theory correctly predicted the rate of global warming over the past
forty years.

CO2 theory also predicted that the stratosphere would cool. It did.

CO2 theory predicted that the Arctic would warm much faster than the
rest of the globe. It has.

Taking predictions made about forty years ago, only those based on CO2
theory have proved correct.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

The last interglacial was a lot warmer so far than this one. Hippopotami on grazing the Thames and
all that,

The Thames was in a different part of the planet then.


Well, I have to say that when compared to when I was a boy visiting the Thames in London it really does feel like its now in a different part of the planet.

I do note with interest that tectonic theory says the Thames will be well up in the Arctic circle in 51 million years.


I have to say I cannot believe that all that mass of energy/heat that drives the tectonic process like a giant lava lamp does not affect ocean temperatures. We are sitting on a massive storage radiator

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 16:32:09 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

My "Weather" hasn't arrived yet so I haven't seen any of this. I wonder why it should be that the jet will strengthen under warmer conditions.. I have seen research that shows it will also move north. Apart from Brooks' conjecture is there a simple qualitative explanation of why this should be so?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

The piece in "Weather" is referring to a paper he http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/2/024008

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 16:32:09 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 10:22:49 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
In the March issue of Weather, the 'Weather news' section has an
article headed 'Will climate change delay transatlantic flights?' Now
I assumed from the title and the prevailing thoughts on the effects of
climate change that, contrary to the CEP Brooks article in Weather in
1950, the differential warming between the Arctic and the Tropics would
weaken the jet-stream, this delay to flights would be referring to
eastbound flights. On reading the article, I see my assumptions were
wrong.

The article says that eastbound flights will speed up due to the
strengthening jet-stream but west-bound ones will slow. It says that
unless emissions are cut, jet-stream winds along the flight route
between Heathrow and JFK are 'predicted to to become 15% faster in
winter, increasing from 77 to 89km/h, with similar increases in the
other seasons.'


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

My "Weather" hasn't arrived yet so I haven't seen any of this. I wonder why it should be that the jet will strengthen under warmer conditions.. I have seen research that shows it will also move north. Apart from Brooks' conjecture is there a simple qualitative explanation of why this should be so?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

A perspective on the paper is he http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/3/031002

It is probably better to read the perspective before or instead of reading the paper

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 5:51:47 PM UTC, Martin Dixon wrote:
In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them.

So you've been published in climate science?

No you haven't have you? You just have an enormously over-inflated opinion of what you actually know.

99.99% of published scientists feel that CO2 is highly likely (at least) to be causing the current warming......and you actually think you know better, having had nothing published, Martin.

Think about it.

And then you quote Watts to try to back your arguments. Ouch.

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 12:14:39 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 27 March 2016 10:29:17 UTC+1, Bob Martin wrote:
in 434962 20160326 205558 Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Saturday, 26 March 2016 18:50:44 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 17:40:45 GMT
Martin Dixon wrote:

In message
Paul Garvey wrote:

Err Martin. Why do you feel you know better than 99.99% of published
scientists?

No, of course I don't, although I probably know more about climate
than quite a lot of them, especially those who work in completely
different areas like medicine, chemistry etc. and have never studied
climatology.

And you know more about climatology than 98% of climatologists?


But then, there was a time when most published scientists believed
that the sun orbited the earth, even astronomers....

There is an interesting paper on Watts at the moment (I linked to it
in another thread) that explains recent warming in terms of natural
climate cycles. It is obvious that such cycles exist. We shall know
whether or not that is correct fairly soon, around 2020 if I
understand it correctly.



Natural cycles predicted that the global temperatures would be colder
now than at any time since the early 19th century. So much for that
theory!

How about some of the other non-CO2 ideas for explaining away global
warming?

Solar output has been falling whilst global temperatures have been
rising so I think that's another theory that can be consigned to file
13. Mind you, Brooks managed to do that before the Festival of Britain.

According to one of Lawrence's heroes, Joe *******i, global temperatures
would fall back to normal during the negative cycle of the PDO. That
index started dropping in the early 80s but air temperatures kept
going up.


As no natural explanations even get the temperature graph pointing in
the right direction, what about CO2 theory?

CO2 theory correctly predicted the rate of global warming over the past
forty years.

CO2 theory also predicted that the stratosphere would cool. It did.

CO2 theory predicted that the Arctic would warm much faster than the
rest of the globe. It has.

Taking predictions made about forty years ago, only those based on CO2
theory have proved correct.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

The last interglacial was a lot warmer so far than this one. Hippopotami on grazing the Thames and
all that,

The Thames was in a different part of the planet then.


Well, I have to say that when compared to when I was a boy visiting the Thames in London it really does feel like its now in a different part of the planet.

I do note with interest that tectonic theory says the Thames will be well up in the Arctic circle in 51 million years.


I have to say I cannot believe that all that mass of energy/heat that drives the tectonic process like a giant lava lamp does not affect ocean temperatures. We are sitting on a massive storage radiator

larry tries the underwater volcanoes ploy. Just hilarious. Please try doing some google searches, larry. 😂😂😂😂😂😂