okie wrote:You've quoted so often the data from Central England here, okie.I would love to see good data on rainfall figures for the last century world wide.
Don't you consider those for a good source any more?
You seriously thought humans could have kept a 6000 year record?
Thats it ? Thats all you got ?
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting Mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased in number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking at tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. "There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what's going on with the climate," Briggs wrote to EPW on December 28, 2007. "Most scientists just don't want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one's academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet," Briggs explained. "It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill," Briggs wrote. "The skill of climate forecasts---global climate models---upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models," he added. Briggs also further explained the inadequacies of climate models. "Here is a simplified version of what happens. A modeler starts with the hypothesis that CO2 traps heat, describes an equation for this, finds a numerical-approximate solution for this equation, codes the approximation, and then runs the model twice, once at ‘pre-industrial’ levels of CO2, and once at twice that level, and, lo!, the modeler discovers that the later simulation gives a warmer atmosphere! He then publishes a paper which states something to the effect of, ‘Our new model shows that increasing CO2 warms the air,’” Briggs explained. “Well, it couldn't do anything *but* show that, since that is what it was programmed to show. But, somehow, the fact the model shows just what it was programmed to show is used as evidence that the assumptions underlying the model were correct. Needless to say---but I will say it---this is backwards,” he added. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) [Updated 01/09/2008]
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,
His latest work was ranking Colleges for the Wall Street Journal.
I guess riding to work on a train makes one a "bus rider" in your world