In message , Alan LeHun
writes
In article ,
says...


(BTW, meteorologists and climatologists are not the same.)


This is certainly true. A recent survey of various scientific fields
showed that meteorologists were only behind Petroleum geologists when it
came to anthropogenic CC skepticism.

I found what appears to be the original

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

That says economic geologists, rather than petroleum geologists. But to
be thankful for small mercies, at least meteorologists are less
skeptical than the general public.

Not surprisingly, climatologists were at the other end of the list.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ssa011609.php
http://tinyurl.com/axxl3m

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Mar 14, 3:21*pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Alan LeHun
writes

In article ,
says...

(BTW, meteorologists and climatologists are not the same.)

This is certainly true. A recent survey of various scientific fields
showed that meteorologists were only behind Petroleum geologists when it
came to anthropogenic CC skepticism.

I found what appears to be the original

* *http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

That says economic geologists, rather than petroleum geologists. But to
be thankful for small mercies, at least meteorologists are less
skeptical than the general public.

Not surprisingly, climatologists were at the other end of the list.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ssa011609.php
http://tinyurl.com/axxl3m

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks Alan and Stewart for those links. It is nice to have
confirmation of a fact that I had long thought true.

As an amateur climatologist I have long been appaled by the global
warming scepticism of the amateur and professional meteorologists
here, as most of you may be aware :-(

The problem is that it is the meteorologist, not climatologists, who
appear on the TV daily, or presents blogs e.g. Joe *******i. They are
the ones who the public trusts, yet they are giving a false message.

Cheers, Alastair.

On 14 Mar, 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
Pete L wrote:
There are obviously vested interests in the whole 'global warming'
business - and who can blame poor meteorologists for keeping
themselves in a job with the promise of more funding for research. I
just find it appalling that politicians dish out the money without
paying any attention to the evidence. I have never seen any
disagreement with the fact that global temperatures have fallen each
year since 1998.

Had your eyes closed? There has been plenty of disagreement. 2005 was warmer
than 1998 for a start. Even if 2005 is ignored, so what? 1998 was an unusual
year - as were 1973, '81 and '90. In order to smooth the data I took an 11-
year running mean - an attempt to iron out the solar cycle - and it shows a
continuing rise in global air temperatures. The last time this graph showed
a drop in temperature was from 1986 to '87. The graph will show a dip next
near but then resume its rise - unless we get a couple of years to match the
"cold" years of 1999 and 2000. Those two years were only 0.4C above the
1951-80 average.

I have just looked at a graph showing global sea ice
cover which, at a glance, shows there is certainly no less ice today
as there was in 1981.

In the Arctic, there certainly is less ice than 81 - which as I've already
pointed out was an notably warm year for that period - and there's been much
less ice in the past decade than in the '60s.

I suspect that slowness of Antarctic sea-ice to respond to rising global
temperatures is due to increased melting of the ice-cap, thus increasing the
amount of fresh water in the area and also lowering sea temperatures.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Met Office site says quite plainly that 1998 was the warmest year on
record.......

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...pr20081230.htm


Are you suggesting they are fiddling their figures?

I think 2005 equaled 1998

"Pete L" wrote in message
...
On 14 Mar, 08:08, Graham P Davis wrote:
Pete L wrote:
There are obviously vested interests in the whole 'global warming'
business - and who can blame poor meteorologists for keeping
themselves in a job with the promise of more funding for research. I
just find it appalling that politicians dish out the money without
paying any attention to the evidence. I have never seen any
disagreement with the fact that global temperatures have fallen each
year since 1998.

Had your eyes closed? There has been plenty of disagreement. 2005 was
warmer
than 1998 for a start. Even if 2005 is ignored, so what? 1998 was an
unusual
year - as were 1973, '81 and '90. In order to smooth the data I took an
11-
year running mean - an attempt to iron out the solar cycle - and it shows
a
continuing rise in global air temperatures. The last time this graph
showed
a drop in temperature was from 1986 to '87. The graph will show a dip
next
near but then resume its rise - unless we get a couple of years to match
the
"cold" years of 1999 and 2000. Those two years were only 0.4C above the
1951-80 average.

I have just looked at a graph showing global sea ice
cover which, at a glance, shows there is certainly no less ice today
as there was in 1981.

In the Arctic, there certainly is less ice than 81 - which as I've
already
pointed out was an notably warm year for that period - and there's been
much
less ice in the past decade than in the '60s.

I suspect that slowness of Antarctic sea-ice to respond to rising global
temperatures is due to increased melting of the ice-cap, thus increasing
the
amount of fresh water in the area and also lowering sea temperatures.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Met Office site says quite plainly that 1998 was the warmest year on
record.......

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...pr20081230.htm


Are you suggesting they are fiddling their figures?

In message , Stan Kellett
writes
I think 2005 equaled 1998

The difference between 1998 and 2005 is within the margin of error.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Mar 14, 10:34*pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Stan Kellett
writes

I think 2005 equaled 1998

The difference between 1998 and 2005 is within the margin of error.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The Arctic sea ice is melting, and when it has gone the climate will
have to adjust. That means disaster, and whether 2005 or 1998 was the
warmest year is irrelevant.

Aren't there any inteligent people out there? No, I suppose not. That
is why we are all doomed :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Stan Kellett
writes

I think 2005 equaled 1998

The difference between 1998 and 2005 is within the margin of error.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The Arctic sea ice is melting, and when it has gone the climate will
have to adjust. That means disaster, and whether 2005 or 1998 was the
warmest year is irrelevant.

Aren't there any inteligent people out there? No, I suppose not. That
is why we are all doomed :-(


Yes there are intelligent people out there. Rational folk too, who don't
spend all there time on street corners with the same boring message about
doomsday. Vicky Pope for one.

Will
--

Alastair wrote:


The Arctic sea ice is melting, and when it has gone the climate will
have to adjust.

Is it?

http://tinyurl.com/cyw86y

On Mar 15, 9:05*am, "Will Hand" wrote:
Alastair wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Stan Kellett
writes

I think 2005 equaled 1998

The difference between 1998 and 2005 is within the margin of error.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The Arctic sea ice is melting, and when it has gone the climate will
have to adjust. That means disaster, and whether 2005 or 1998 was the
warmest year is irrelevant.

Aren't there any inteligent people out there? No, I suppose not. That
is why we are all doomed :-(

Yes there are intelligent people out there. Rational folk too, who don't
spend all there time on street corners with the same boring message about
doomsday. Vicky Pope for one.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rational or not, in my 62 years of out door activity (less the first 2
years of relative immobility), I have noticed significant changes in
the weather. I cannot but fear the worse case scenario, where very
shortly, we are going to have to adapt rapidly to sudden changes to
our environment. Will, I have been following your forecasts for I
guess for over 10 years and have great respect for your intellect and
weather knowledge. Now just tell me that James's Lovelock's theories
are flawed and I will sleep a lot easier at nights!

Mike McMillan

The Garden Isle (sunny, 110 degrees and waiting for the first sea
breeze).

On Mar 15, 1:53*pm, Mike McMillan wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:05*am, "Will Hand" wrote:





Alastair wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Stan Kellett
writes

I think 2005 equaled 1998

The difference between 1998 and 2005 is within the margin of error.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The Arctic sea ice is melting, and when it has gone the climate will
have to adjust. That means disaster, and whether 2005 or 1998 was the
warmest year is irrelevant.

Aren't there any inteligent people out there? No, I suppose not. That
is why we are all doomed :-(

Yes there are intelligent people out there. Rational folk too, who don't
spend all there time on street corners with the same boring message about
doomsday. Vicky Pope for one.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rational or not, in my 62 years of out door activity (less the first 2
years of relative immobility), I have noticed significant changes in
the weather. I cannot but fear the worse case scenario, where very
shortly, we are going to have to adapt rapidly to sudden changes to
our environment. Will, I have been following your forecasts for I
guess for over 10 years and have great respect for your intellect and
weather knowledge. Now just tell me that James's Lovelock's theories
are flawed and I will sleep a lot easier at nights!

Mike McMillan

The Garden Isle (sunny, 110 degrees and waiting for the first sea
breeze).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

slightly exaggerated, 11 degrees