tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post3451068832418580958..comments2023-12-02T00:59:10.380+01:00Comments on England Expects: Update on Climate ChangeGawain Towlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583658895528269901noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-31317525572824662432007-05-11T20:13:00.000+02:002007-05-11T20:13:00.000+02:00How do you know what I did in the potteries? I'd a...How do you know what I did in the potteries? I'd agreed with all parties that what we did in St*ke-*n-Tr*nt stayed in St*ke-*n-Tr*nt...The Aunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14529168814096715981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-30031827902601258012007-05-10T19:24:00.000+02:002007-05-10T19:24:00.000+02:00Paul H,Here are some comments on your point 7.(a) ...Paul H,<BR/>Here are some comments on your point 7.<BR/>(a) Your two typos in the spelling of Friis-Christensen are not a good start.<BR/>(b) You ask why the data stop at 1980. If you had bothered to read any of the papers you would know the answer to this. Estimating the cycle length is done using a filter (averaging) so cannot be done up to the present. <BR/>(c) Your statement about the yellow dot being where they used 'incorrect data' is just wrong.<BR/>(d) You refer to the article by Damon and Laut ("Strange errors ..."). If you read it and check the papers referred to you will see that the only 'strange errors' are those of Damon and Laut themselves. For example D&L say that their fig 1b comes from L&FC, which it does not. <BR/><BR/>Elaib says that FC has not published a response to D&L. The story here is interesting. Laut has published 3 papers repeating the same criticisms. The first in JGR (2000) is followed by a reply by Lassen & FC. After the third one in 2004 in EOS Forum, FC wrote a response but EOS did not publish it. You can read the response <BR/><A HREF="http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications" REL="nofollow"> here</A>.<BR/><BR/>Of course there are some errors and distortions of the truth in TGGWS. But there are also errors and distortions in other films (such as An Inconvenient Truth) and in your letter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-13662176506467538932007-05-09T17:46:00.000+02:002007-05-09T17:46:00.000+02:00Paul,We don't know for sure. Many people think th...Paul,<BR/><BR/>We don't know for sure. Many people think they know, but even they admit a ten percent chance they're wrong, which is a huge margin in science. Until we fully understand the atmosphere and how it responds to things, we can't answer the question adequately, and we're a long way from that. And as Dick Lindzen demonstrates, a lot of that 90% certainty is based on circular reasoning. That said I wonder can you answer the other comments?<BR/><BR/>Oh and can I suggest that you go and have a look at the climateaudit.org and get stuck in.<BR/><BR/>On the second, (problems with AIT) I will get back to you.Gawain Towlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08583658895528269901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-34577492141463356822007-05-09T14:38:00.000+02:002007-05-09T14:38:00.000+02:00Elaib,Just to make it clear, leaving out the tempe...Elaib,<BR/><BR/>Just to make it clear, leaving out the temperature data from the last 20 years or so is a bit more than a quibble. Quibble? That's the understatement of the year. This is the part of the temperature record which the IPCC claim is most strongly linked to human influence, this, in essence, is what the fuss is all about. Why then did Durkin not include it? Why didn't he just use the data from HAD-CRUT and NASA-GISS? By leaving out the data post 1987 he completely misrepresented the argument of the IPCC and climate scientists. It was supposed to be a science documentary, yet it includes such elementary mistakes as this. Would you really advocate for such a mistake ridden 'documentary' (polemic) to be issued to schools?<BR/><BR/>In light of the fact that you agree that the solar climate correlation is weak post 1960, what is causing climate change? This is within the context of satellite evidence showing an increase in the greenhouse effect since the 1970s:<BR/><BR/>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4114<BR/><BR/>model results which can not reproduce the 20th C climate record without the inclusion of human forcings:<BR/><BR/>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm<BR/><BR/>and models which seem perfectly capable of predicting future climate:<BR/><BR/>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/<BR/><BR/>And on the subject of AIT, what exactly are Stuart Dimmock's (or your) complaints with regards to the science within AIT?<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10701792.post-83038010517075540812007-05-08T21:26:00.000+02:002007-05-08T21:26:00.000+02:00Quibblegreat word that.shall read and digest at le...Quibble<BR/>great word that.<BR/>shall read and digest at leisure. bit annoying though that I can't read the graphics, is that a ploy?<BR/>thank you, <BR/>I'll be back.Honeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15662439151558495496noreply@blogger.com