"Brendan DJ Murphy" wrote in message
...

03:14 04Dec2003 No doubts global warming is real, U.S. experts say

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - There can be no doubt that global
warming is real and is being
caused by people, two top U.S. government climate experts said.
Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say -- contradicting
critics, already in the
minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural
forces.
"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing
because of human
activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on
global climate," wrote
Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Climatic
Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at
the National Center for
Atmospheric Research.
"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme
precipitation events, and
related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and
sea-level rise," they added
in a commentary to be published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90
percent probability that
average global temperatures will rise by between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees
Fahrenheit (1.7 and 4.9 degrees
Celsius) because of human influences on climate.
Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers,
inundating coastal areas.
Many other groups have already shown that ice in Greenland, the Arctic and
Antarctica is melting
quickly.
Karl and Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
have risen by 31 percent
since preindustrial times.
Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming
temperatures by trapping the Sun's
energy in the atmosphere.
Emissions of sulfate and soot particles have significant effects too,
but more localized, they
said.
"Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future,
significant further climate
change is guaranteed," they wrote.
The United States has balked at signing international treaties to
reduce climate-changing
emissions, but the two experts said global cooperation is key.
"Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be
humanity's greatest
challenge," they wrote. "It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed
without greatly improved
international cooperation and action."



Really. So when 2 scientists claim that global warming is real, then we all
get scared. Come off it, the worst aspect of this global warming debate is
the politics, which stinks, as the artcile below demonstrates.



Nonsense By Any Other Name: Calling Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant Doesn't Make
It A Pollutant


by Gerald Marsh


It is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a
pollutant, one that should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Seven
Northeastern states have even announced their intention to sue the
administration for its failure to regulate power plant emissions of carbon
dioxide under the Act.

They claim to be doing this because fossil-fueled electric power plants are
the source of nearly forty percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in the U.S.
To underline the importance of doing something to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions-like ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty on climate change
which mandates reducing carbon dioxide emissions-they and others have
repeatedly stated that carbon dioxide is the main global warming gas.

These claims are not only wrong, they are irresponsible.

That is why the Clean Air Act does not regulate the emission of carbon
dioxide.

However, the lawsuit that the seven Northeastern states intend to bring
maintains that had the Environmental Protection Agency performed the
required reviews of standards governing power plant emissions they would
have added carbon dioxide to the list of emissions requiring regulation.

This is nonsense.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the
atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for
life. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without it,
plants could not grow and all animal life would consequently die. In no way
is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is badly misleading.

The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Europeans tend to be strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, and many think
it shameful that the U.S. has not ratified it. But we have not done so
because it is by no means clear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are
responsible for the small observed warming.

Why, then, do European governments support the Protocol? To quote Margot
Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner for the environment, global
warming "is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an
issue where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international
relations, this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing
field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what
is at stake and that is why it is serious." In other words, the European
objective is to put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. It
costs Europe nothing to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, since
they did so when they switched from high-sulfur coal to North Sea natural
gas, and Germany shut down many highly polluting East German factories. But
it would cost the U.S. a great deal.

So much for the European moral high ground.

The issue is not whether there is a small global warming trend; it is
whether or not the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for this warming,
or whether the warming is of natural origin. The Bush administration made
the determination that the science behind the Kyoto Protocol did not justify
the economic impact on the United States-although this could change in the
future.
That was the right decision.

Despite claims to the contrary, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities are
responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer
models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that the
art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties
are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed warming
over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded.

The Earth has been warming erratically for 10,000 years (since the last ice
age). That has been good, up to now, because it's what made the
non-equatorial latitudes habitable. We can expect that warming trend to
continue, no matter what we do about carbon dioxide.

The latest IPCC report is far more comprehensive than earlier ones, and
shows that some fine research is being done. Nevertheless, we don't yet
understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the
long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels.

So it is important to ask, do the Northeastern states seek the same
competitive advantage as the Europeans, or simply some political advantage
here at home.

Nonsense by any other name is still nonsense.



Source: Gerald Marsh is a physicist who has managed the implementation of an
important weather forecasting program for the U.S. Air Force.


--
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** *
Gavin Staples.

website updated regularly
www.gavinstaples.com

Currently writing book titled: Contemporary Societies East and West. The
introduction of this is on my homepage.


Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up. ~ Jesse Jackson.

All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet Securities
2003.

************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **

Gavin, isn't it measured and reasonable to take the word of two of the
worlds formost climatologists?

Why instead would we accept the word of 'Gerald Marsh' who is 'a physicist
who has managed the implementation of an important weather forecasting
program for the U.S. Air Force'?

Peter Hearnden


"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...


"Brendan DJ Murphy" wrote in message
...

03:14 04Dec2003 No doubts global warming is real, U.S. experts say

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - There can be no doubt that global
warming is real and is being
caused by people, two top U.S. government climate experts said.
Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say -- contradicting
critics, already in the
minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly
natural
forces.
"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is
changing
because of human
activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence
on
global climate," wrote
Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Climatic
Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section
at
the National Center for
Atmospheric Research.
"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme
precipitation events, and
related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and
sea-level rise," they added
in a commentary to be published in Friday's issue of the journal
Science.
Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a
90
percent probability that
average global temperatures will rise by between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees
Fahrenheit (1.7 and 4.9 degrees
Celsius) because of human influences on climate.
Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers,
inundating coastal areas.
Many other groups have already shown that ice in Greenland, the Arctic
and
Antarctica is melting
quickly.
Karl and Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere
have risen by 31 percent
since preindustrial times.
Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming
temperatures by trapping the Sun's
energy in the atmosphere.
Emissions of sulfate and soot particles have significant effects
too,
but more localized, they
said.
"Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future,
significant further climate
change is guaranteed," they wrote.
The United States has balked at signing international treaties to
reduce climate-changing
emissions, but the two experts said global cooperation is key.
"Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be
humanity's greatest
challenge," they wrote. "It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed
without greatly improved
international cooperation and action."



Really. So when 2 scientists claim that global warming is real, then we
all
get scared. Come off it, the worst aspect of this global warming debate is
the politics, which stinks, as the artcile below demonstrates.



Nonsense By Any Other Name: Calling Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant Doesn't
Make
It A Pollutant


by Gerald Marsh


It is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is
a
pollutant, one that should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Seven
Northeastern states have even announced their intention to sue the
administration for its failure to regulate power plant emissions of carbon
dioxide under the Act.

They claim to be doing this because fossil-fueled electric power plants
are
the source of nearly forty percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in the
U.S.
To underline the importance of doing something to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions-like ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty on climate change
which mandates reducing carbon dioxide emissions-they and others have
repeatedly stated that carbon dioxide is the main global warming gas.

These claims are not only wrong, they are irresponsible.

That is why the Clean Air Act does not regulate the emission of carbon
dioxide.

However, the lawsuit that the seven Northeastern states intend to bring
maintains that had the Environmental Protection Agency performed the
required reviews of standards governing power plant emissions they would
have added carbon dioxide to the list of emissions requiring regulation.

This is nonsense.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the
atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for
life. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without it,
plants could not grow and all animal life would consequently die. In no
way
is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is badly misleading.

The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Europeans tend to be strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, and many
think
it shameful that the U.S. has not ratified it. But we have not done so
because it is by no means clear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are
responsible for the small observed warming.

Why, then, do European governments support the Protocol? To quote Margot
Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner for the environment, global
warming "is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an
issue where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international
relations, this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing
field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what
is at stake and that is why it is serious." In other words, the European
objective is to put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. It
costs Europe nothing to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, since
they did so when they switched from high-sulfur coal to North Sea natural
gas, and Germany shut down many highly polluting East German factories.
But
it would cost the U.S. a great deal.

So much for the European moral high ground.

The issue is not whether there is a small global warming trend; it is
whether or not the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for this
warming,
or whether the warming is of natural origin. The Bush administration made
the determination that the science behind the Kyoto Protocol did not
justify
the economic impact on the United States-although this could change in the
future.
That was the right decision.

Despite claims to the contrary, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities are
responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer
models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that the
art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The uncertainties
are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed warming
over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded.

The Earth has been warming erratically for 10,000 years (since the last
ice
age). That has been good, up to now, because it's what made the
non-equatorial latitudes habitable. We can expect that warming trend to
continue, no matter what we do about carbon dioxide.

The latest IPCC report is far more comprehensive than earlier ones, and
shows that some fine research is being done. Nevertheless, we don't yet
understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the
long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil
fuels.

So it is important to ask, do the Northeastern states seek the same
competitive advantage as the Europeans, or simply some political advantage
here at home.

Nonsense by any other name is still nonsense.



Source: Gerald Marsh is a physicist who has managed the implementation of
an
important weather forecasting program for the U.S. Air Force.


--

************************************************** **************************
************************************************** *
Gavin Staples.

website updated regularly
www.gavinstaples.com

Currently writing book titled: Contemporary Societies East and West. The
introduction of this is on my homepage.


Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up. ~ Jesse Jackson.

All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet Securities
2003.


************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **

In article ,
Peter Hearnden writes:
Gavin, isn't it measured and reasonable to take the word of two of the
worlds formost climatologists?

It wouldn't be if they were in a minority of two, though. As it happens,
I believe that at least 90% of climatologists would agree with them that
anthropogenic GW is a reality, so I accept that it almost certainly is
happening. But on your argument, if I could find two of the world's
foremost climatologists who denied that it was happening, presumably you
would want to take their word too. There are always going to be a few
scientists - even eminent ones - who are mavericks disagreeing with the
prevailing opinion.
--
John Hall

You can divide people into two categories:
those who divide people into two categories and those who don't

In message , Peter Hearnden
writes
Gavin, isn't it measured and reasonable to take the word of two of the
worlds formost climatologists?

Why instead would we accept the word of 'Gerald Marsh' who is 'a physicist
who has managed the implementation of an important weather forecasting
program for the U.S. Air Force'?

Peter Hearnden


I think a glimpse of his web site will provide an inkling as to where
Gavin's political sympathies lay and why he chooses to take the word of
an American Air Force man, in preference to the views of respected
scientists.


--
Bill

Global warming is occuring, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas rapidly increasing
in the atmosphere as a result of man's activities.

I fail to see why certain people refuse to accept that there is likely to be
a link.

Could it be that these are the people blinded by politics, rather than the
environmentalists.

--
Graham
Penzance

Holiday Cottage www.easterling.freeserve.co.uk
Penzance Weather www.easterling.freeserve.co.uk/weather.html

"Peter Hearnden" wrote in message
...
Gavin, isn't it measured and reasonable to take the word of two of the
worlds formost climatologists?

Why instead would we accept the word of 'Gerald Marsh' who is 'a physicist
who has managed the implementation of an important weather forecasting
program for the U.S. Air Force'?

Peter Hearnden


"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...


"Brendan DJ Murphy" wrote in message
...

03:14 04Dec2003 No doubts global warming is real, U.S. experts say

WASHINGTON, Dec 3 (Reuters) - There can be no doubt that global
warming is real and is being
caused by people, two top U.S. government climate experts said.
Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say --
contradicting
critics, already in the
minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly
natural
forces.
"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is
changing
because of human
activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence
on
global climate," wrote
Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Climatic
Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section
at
the National Center for
Atmospheric Research.
"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme
precipitation events, and
related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and
sea-level rise," they added
in a commentary to be published in Friday's issue of the journal
Science.
Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is
a
90
percent probability that
average global temperatures will rise by between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees
Fahrenheit (1.7 and 4.9 degrees
Celsius) because of human influences on climate.
Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling
glaciers,
inundating coastal areas.
Many other groups have already shown that ice in Greenland, the Arctic
and
Antarctica is melting
quickly.
Karl and Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere
have risen by 31 percent
since preindustrial times.
Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming
temperatures by trapping the Sun's
energy in the atmosphere.
Emissions of sulfate and soot particles have significant effects
too,
but more localized, they
said.
"Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future,
significant further climate
change is guaranteed," they wrote.
The United States has balked at signing international treaties to
reduce climate-changing
emissions, but the two experts said global cooperation is key.
"Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be
humanity's greatest
challenge," they wrote. "It is very unlikely to be adequately
addressed
without greatly improved
international cooperation and action."



Really. So when 2 scientists claim that global warming is real, then we
all
get scared. Come off it, the worst aspect of this global warming debate
is
the politics, which stinks, as the artcile below demonstrates.



Nonsense By Any Other Name: Calling Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant Doesn't
Make
It A Pollutant


by Gerald Marsh


It is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide
is
a
pollutant, one that should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Seven
Northeastern states have even announced their intention to sue the
administration for its failure to regulate power plant emissions of
carbon
dioxide under the Act.

They claim to be doing this because fossil-fueled electric power plants
are
the source of nearly forty percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in the
U.S.
To underline the importance of doing something to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions-like ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty on climate
change
which mandates reducing carbon dioxide emissions-they and others have
repeatedly stated that carbon dioxide is the main global warming gas.

These claims are not only wrong, they are irresponsible.

That is why the Clean Air Act does not regulate the emission of carbon
dioxide.

However, the lawsuit that the seven Northeastern states intend to bring
maintains that had the Environmental Protection Agency performed the
required reviews of standards governing power plant emissions they would
have added carbon dioxide to the list of emissions requiring regulation.

This is nonsense.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas that occurs naturally in the
atmosphere and helps to maintain the earth at a temperature suitable for
life. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of all plants. Without
it,
plants could not grow and all animal life would consequently die. In no
way
is this gas a pollutant. To call it one is badly misleading.

The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Europeans tend to be strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, and many
think
it shameful that the U.S. has not ratified it. But we have not done so
because it is by no means clear that human emissions of carbon dioxide
are
responsible for the small observed warming.

Why, then, do European governments support the Protocol? To quote Margot
Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner for the environment, global
warming "is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an
issue where scientists are not unanimous. This is about international
relations, this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing
field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand
what
is at stake and that is why it is serious." In other words, the European
objective is to put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. It
costs Europe nothing to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol,
since
they did so when they switched from high-sulfur coal to North Sea
natural
gas, and Germany shut down many highly polluting East German factories.
But
it would cost the U.S. a great deal.

So much for the European moral high ground.

The issue is not whether there is a small global warming trend; it is
whether or not the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for this
warming,
or whether the warming is of natural origin. The Bush administration
made
the determination that the science behind the Kyoto Protocol did not
justify
the economic impact on the United States-although this could change in
the
future.
That was the right decision.

Despite claims to the contrary, the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not show that human activities are
responsible for global warming. Its conclusions were based on computer
models of the earth's climate. However, the problem is so complex that
the
art of constructing such models is still in its infancy. The
uncertainties
are so great that the claim by the IPCC that "most of the observed
warming
over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations" is "likely" to be unfounded.

The Earth has been warming erratically for 10,000 years (since the last
ice
age). That has been good, up to now, because it's what made the
non-equatorial latitudes habitable. We can expect that warming trend to
continue, no matter what we do about carbon dioxide.

The latest IPCC report is far more comprehensive than earlier ones, and
shows that some fine research is being done. Nevertheless, we don't yet
understand the earth's climate well enough to be able to assess the
long-term effect of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil
fuels.

So it is important to ask, do the Northeastern states seek the same
competitive advantage as the Europeans, or simply some political
advantage
here at home.

Nonsense by any other name is still nonsense.



Source: Gerald Marsh is a physicist who has managed the implementation
of
an
important weather forecasting program for the U.S. Air Force.


--


************************************************** **************************
************************************************** *
Gavin Staples.

website updated regularly
www.gavinstaples.com

Currently writing book titled: Contemporary Societies East and West. The
introduction of this is on my homepage.


Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up. ~ Jesse
Jackson.

All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet
Securities
2003.



************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Hearnden writes:
Gavin, isn't it measured and reasonable to take the word of two of the
worlds formost climatologists?

It wouldn't be if they were in a minority of two, though. As it happens,
I believe that at least 90% of climatologists would agree with them that
anthropogenic GW is a reality, so I accept that it almost certainly is
happening. But on your argument, if I could find two of the world's
foremost climatologists who denied that it was happening, presumably you
would want to take their word too. There are always going to be a few
scientists - even eminent ones - who are mavericks disagreeing with the
prevailing opinion.


There are only three scientists whose work is respected and could be
considered skeptics. The first is Lindzen, but he accepts that
antropogenic global warming is happening. He just expects the effects to
be in the very low range. The other two are Christy and Spencer. They
believe, because the temperture of the troposphere derived from satellite
radar has not change over the last 30 years, that the temperature on the
ground has not changed either. If I tell you that this implies that the
temperature readings taken by meteorologists must be wrong, then
you can see how much reliance should be placed on their views.

Karl and Trenberth are not mavericks.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:50:19 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

The other two are Christy and Spencer. They
believe, because the temperture of the troposphere derived from satellite
radar has not change over the last 30 years, that the temperature on the
ground has not changed either. If I tell you that this implies that the
temperature readings taken by meteorologists must be wrong, then
you can see how much reliance should be placed on their views.

There is a persuasive body of opinion out there that believes
insufficient correction has been made for increasing urbanisation,
the meteorological effects of which spread far beyond urban
boundaries. It seems to me that this is the implication of Christy and
Spencer's findings and not necessarily that readings taken by
meteorologists are wrong.

--
Dave

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:50:19 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

The other two are Christy and Spencer. They
believe, because the temperture of the troposphere derived from satellite
radar has not change over the last 30 years, that the temperature on the
ground has not changed either. If I tell you that this implies that the
temperature readings taken by meteorologists must be wrong, then
you can see how much reliance should be placed on their views.

There is a persuasive body of opinion out there that believes
insufficient correction has been made for increasing urbanisation,
the meteorological effects of which spread far beyond urban
boundaries. It seems to me that this is the implication of Christy and
Spencer's findings and not necessarily that readings taken by
meteorologists are wrong.

--
Dave

Dave, there are a couple of other interpretations of the raw satellite data.
These show more warming than S&C, indeed warming inline with the surface
record....

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html is one. It makes
interesting reading.

Whoever you trust, I think it's fair to say extracting good temp data from
the sats msu data is not easy. I also think some of the claimed accuracy's
for S&C you get out there are preposterous.

Peter Hearnden

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:50:19 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:

The other two are Christy and Spencer. They
believe, because the temperture of the troposphere derived from satellite
radar has not change over the last 30 years, that the temperature on the
ground has not changed either. If I tell you that this implies that the
temperature readings taken by meteorologists must be wrong, then
you can see how much reliance should be placed on their views.

There is a persuasive body of opinion out there that believes
insufficient correction has been made for increasing urbanisation,
the meteorological effects of which spread far beyond urban
boundaries. It seems to me that this is the implication of Christy and
Spencer's findings and not necessarily that readings taken by
meteorologists are wrong.

The meteorologists are well aware of the 'heat island effect' and have
taken it into account in their calculation of changes in global temperatures.
It is only that charlatan John Daly, with no scientific credentials, who
persists in beating that drum. Christy and Spencer do not, nor do those
scientists who criticise their figures.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:06:59 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message

There is a persuasive body of opinion out there that believes
insufficient correction has been made for increasing urbanisation,
the meteorological effects of which spread far beyond urban
boundaries. It seems to me that this is the implication of Christy and
Spencer's findings and not necessarily that readings taken by
meteorologists are wrong.

The meteorologists are well aware of the 'heat island effect' and have
taken it into account in their calculation of changes in global temperatures.

Obviously, I know this. I said "insufficient correction". The problem
is that some important long-record stations have suffered a bigger
heat island effect than GW effect. So any errors in the estimated heat
island corrections could have a disproportionate effect on the GW
predictions.

It is only that charlatan John Daly, with no scientific credentials, who
persists in beating that drum. Christy and Spencer do not, nor do those
scientists who criticise their figures.

You do your case no good at all by implicitly dismissing people with a
different viewpoint (in this case, everyone who is sceptical about the
accuracy of heat island corrections) as "charlatans" without
explaining why. Periodically re-examining the all the opposing
arguments with an open mind, to guard against the possibility of error
or wrong assumptions, is an essential part of good science. Especially
in such an imprecise science as climatology.

And yes, I do believe GW is happening and that Kyoto (or better)
should happen.

--
Dave