On Mar 5, 8:30*am, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Natsman" wrote in message

...
On 4 Mar, 20:27, Ouroboros Rex wrote:





On 3/4/2010 12:47 PM, Meteorologist wrote:

On Feb 28, 5:35 am, wrote:
...
Crunchy; I'm happy for you to believe that. He seems a fine scientist
and his views are interesting; hardly mainstream and certainly not
borne out by current global temperatures, but interesting. However,
next time you wish to link to an article of his, would you please
consider not putting uk.sci.weather in your distribution list as
you'll then save us from the same bunch of sparring idiots, who
generally provide foul and useless replies to you and which always
cause your threads to disintegrate into name-calling, American
politics and pure rubbish?

Pretty please and thanks.

You forgot your manners again because you can't
help yourself. However, you should reform ASAP.
So, call me by my right name, pretty please...

-----

Climate Change And The Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Adrian K. Kerton MSc.

http://www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder...ge/E-E_Clr_Abs....

"Normalisation of latitude and longitude is obtained by reducing the
range of variation to
match the range of variation of temperature. For example if latitude
varies from 70 to 84 degrees
and the corresponding temperature variation is 0,8 degrees, the latitude
variation is converted to a
range starting at zero by subtracting the lowest value, 70, and is then
reduced by a factor of 0.8/14,
so that the latitude variation now becomes 0.8."

This thing is published where?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe Dawlish (and others) might like to take a look at this
discussion at The Guardian, with particular attention to a poster
known as "Lubos" - a celebrated Czech theoretical physicist with a
truly impressive background.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change...

CK
===============

Some good points made in that article, thanks CK.

Will
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Will

Can't argue with the article. It is right on many counts. Lubos'
comments are those of a sceptic and his views are well known. He's
entitled to them and he's a well respected scientist with impeccable
credentials. There's also a chance that he may be right in his
comments about GW not being AGW.

I'd refer anyone to actual rising temperatures; the only measure of
GW. They have nothing to do with spin and they cause measurable
effects which are being experienced worldwide. In addition, the fact
that greenhouse gases will cause warming has been settled for over a
century, despite what a few oddballs would like to believe. That's not
an issue.

After reading "The Guardian" article - which is about scientific
integrity and not global temperatures and their effects - I'd refer
people to this article in "The Times" today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7050341.ece

Odd, but that's exactly the position I've moved to over this last
year. I've written before that IMO, the odds on CO2 being the main
driver of GW have shortened from 1/10 to 1/20 - a 95% chance that this
is the case. I'm not surprised that scientists at the Hadley Centre
feel the same way. If you feel differently, good luck to you and 5%
of me feels the same, but a 5% chance isn't high enough to gamble with
my descendent's future and why we must act on CO2 emissions, despite
the cost.