On 9 Jan, 12:13, Martin Brown
wrote:
broadssailor wrote:
On 8 Jan, 20:32, pete wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:05:28 +0000, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:57:13 -0000, "the gods have made us mad"
wrote:
BBC Radio 4 news was pressed into service earlier today to explain the
conundrum to increasingly sceptical plebs.
The 6pm bulletin went to some lengths to explain that what we are now
experiencing is 'weather' - but that the grave problem of 'climate' still
remains 
It must have been a nationwide Government enforced directive because
we got the same here in Bristol.
Apparently, we were admonished, weather isn't the same as climate.
Weather is day-to-day, climate is something based on 30 years
observations.
Observations of, erm, apparently those very same day-to-day weather
happenings.
So weather and climate are one and the same.
OK, try this for size: stock markets. Some days some stocks go up in
price, other days they go down. On yet other days some different
stocks increase (or decrease in price. It is very difficult to forecast
(there's that word again) which particular stocks will go up (or down)
on a particular day. However we can spot trends by looking back over
market prices for the past, say, 30 years. Over that period what do we
see? Well lookitat: overall, stock prices have increased. *
Would you be willing to bet your pension that this trend will continue -
yes you would. In fact that's precisely what pension funds are betting on.
Does this mean that if you buy one solitary stock on one day and the
next day it drops in price that therefore _all_ stock prices over the
whole planet are not increasing in time? No, it does not.
Hopefully the point has been understood now ....
I think we all understand trends Pete!
Here are some (no, not the Stock Market) for you to ponder
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...g-in-2009.html
That is a classic "How to lie with statistics graph". By starting their
graph with a first point in 1998 that is the most extreme high global
temperature seen in recent history the long term rising trend can be
completely disguised by only looking at the last decade of data. And if
you choose your points carefully then the best fit line can indeed be
made to look like it is cooling *relative* to the one exceptionally warm
year at the start.
US "Dittohead Science" is a pack of lies carefully constructed to
confuse the general public into ignoring the scientific evidence. Sadly
it is working all too well and climate scientists are not explaining
things in a way that the public can comprehend.
There is a negative cyclical influence at the moment on the downside of
a small warming peak that occurs roughly every 60 years. You can see it
in the published data. It made the warming in 1990-2000 larger than was
due to AGW alone and it is presently hiding the continuing rising trend.
Similar peaks can be seen at 1940 and 1880 see for example:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif
And for just the Atlanic MDO component
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanti...al_oscillation
Regards,
Martin Brown
The UEA and Wiki - that's the best you can come up with. Ha!
Yes, lengthen the time line, by all means, but don't forget to include
the Medieval warm period AND the mini ice age which followed. THEN
tell me what the trend is!