Alan Robinson

No he didn't, that was Christensen and Boberg

Perhaps the volume of atmosphere is increasing. Sublimation.

The journalist was quoting Jens Hesselbjerg, a senior climate researcher at the Danish Meteorologigical Institute.

Well, those who claim scince knows it all, read on; http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/klimamodeller_skal_finjusteres More from the climate conference in Denver; CLIMATE MODELS NEED SMALL ADJUSTMENTS Climate researchers are among the first to agree that mathematical models used to predict future climate need improvement. One theme for debate during Wednesday’s WCRP conference in Denver was how climate models might be enhanced, and are they in fact so poor as some people imply. “Briefly put, they are generally quite good” says DMI’s Jens Hesselberg. “They show consensus in many respects, and agree regarding overall tendencies. We ought not forget that current climate models are in fact based on algorithms used for our weather forecasts.” Problems arise however when we go into details regarding localities, timing and types of phenomenon. The method used to optimize climate models is to look back in time to well-documented situations, and to see if our climate models could predict their occurrence. If the phenomenon is not predicted – perhaps the position of a ridge of high pressure; a strong air current in the atmosphere, or sea surface temperatures – then investigations begin in order to understand why the model fails, and what is needed to make it work. “But we should not simply create increasingly complex models”, says Sandrine Bony of Laboratorie de Meteorologie Dynamique. “We must understand the elementary physical science used to write the models. Only when we truly understand the science can we improve the models. Sandrine Bony’s point is that many people nowadays use climate model predictions to guide them in future investments. Duty of care therefore demands that not only climate models be continuously improved, but our overall understanding of the climate.

Maybe the missing sea is in the stratosphere as vapour

A very apt word.

I hadn't thought of you as girly Jethro. Is there something you keep from us? Anyway, science is obviously not in a state of rest, however little progress we might see in our short lifetimes. The development of technology is a clear indication of how many admirable discoveries in the past have since been supplemented or perhaps superceded. Materials technology is a particularly fine example. I personally suspect that climate science is in its infancy, and am unafraid to say so. Where is the taboo?

It seems climate scientists are aware of the need for cross-disciplinary co-operation, and they do not regard state-of-the-art climate science as the finished article. Here is my loose translation of the link below; Applied climate research is the program in Denver. With the theme “Climate Research for Society” more than 700 climate researchers from 80 different countries will convene in Denver, Colorado, just east of the Rocky Mountains. Their aims are to · Review contemporary climate science and provide a valuable contribution to the IPCCs 5th major report · Identify opportunities and challenges connected to weather observations, climate models and analyses in order to improve estimates of how Earth’s climate might develop, and also the occurrence of extreme weather conditions. · To facilitate interaction between various scientific disciplines in order to improve our understanding of Earth as a system · To draw attention to research supportive of climate services, as instigated at the World Climate Conference III in 2009 Participants expect wide-ranging talks, including extreme weather; optimising weather observations, regional reliability of climate models, future sea levels, and the requirements of business for new climate knowledge. http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/anvendt_klimaforskning_paa_programmet_i_denver

People will make up their own minds, but I will simply say of Segalstad - as he is not participating here to defend his own corner - his own website re-directs to the CO2 activist's website, and it is they, not Segalstad that uses emotive language. Regarding his CV I notice he has acted as Expert Reviewer to the IPCC (the environmental lot, not the coppers). When people say the science is settled, I'd just like to know why scientific academics like Segalstad say it isn't; this is why I am skeptical.

Nice to see you are calm, and we can continue the debate. I used partisan as it is defined in my Pocket Oxford dictionary, namely adherent of a party or side or cause, esp. one who prefers its interests to truth and justice. I did so because you wrongly quoted Segalstad. He nowhere writes "doom", it is the people that have taken Segalstad's paper and put it on their partisan website who expressed themselves so. Segalstad's work seems to me very sober and proper. Perhaps you will be kind enough to take another look and realise your mistake; you will not read another word from me on the matter.

Nay, calm yourself sir, in what way did I throw insults about? All you need do is produce evidence that Segalstad and Jaworowski are all at sea with their work. I still haven't seen that.

And the refutation? Did you happen to read Segalstad's work or glance at the reference list? I am personally neither warmist or nay-sayer, and I am not promoting either camp. You on the other hand seem to me partisan.

I also agree with this, and it seems to me that is also the approach taken by Segalstad; link above.

Yes, I read that, and I found Prof Oeschger's letter very personal, emotive, and not what i would expect of a scientist. Jaworowski's work - done with two highly regarded Norwegians - was published in 1991 by the Norwegian Polar Institute. I'd say if anyone rubbishes Jaworowski, then they also rubbish the institute that was behind Amundsen's voyages. The Norwegian Polar Institute was certainly in 1991 one of the world's leading authorities on ice. Anyway, in the meantime I found this by Segalstad, Jaworowski's co-author. http://www.co2web.info/ This is pretty powerful stuff, so perhaps you can present us with a paper that refutes Segalstad and Jaworowski and their long list of accomplished scientists in reference. By refutation I mean criticism of the underlying theory, and / or the mathematics and chemical calculations employed, and not Swiss huffing and puffing.

I'd say that knowing about the atmosphere even in the not so distant past is one of the most contentious elements in the AGW debate. It seems to me Jaworowski originally made a very strong case back in 1991 that the ice core data is not valid, since when hardly anyone has challenged his views published by the Norwegian Polar Institute. He maintains the whole AGW agenda is the biggest scientific scandal of our times, while mainstream science simply ignores Jaworowski without refuting his very well presented arguments. If ever there was a taboo about AGW, it is Jaworowski. Just out of interest - it really belongs in the climate science thread - do you hold that the IPCC's method of estimating past CO2 concentrations is valid? And how is it known that past CO2 concentrations have been as high as the supposed dangerous scenario forecast by AGW activists?

Hmmm. Bulverism. Maybe some people prefer not to read at all, but listen to others that have done the reading. Having listened they consider themselves sufficiently well advised to form an opinion. If I understand you correctly, mcweather doesn't like the supposed consequences of AGW, and therefore holds the view that arguments supporting the idea of AGW are mistaken. Is that your point weathership? Only, it seemed to me he wasn't the least concerned about high CO2 concentrations, as he believes such circumstances have prevailed previously with little or no ill effect.

I suppose intuition plays a significant role in matters where people don't have time to read all those papers and journals; and anyway, they probably wouldn't understand all of what they read. The problem is that politicians have played their AGW cards, and that is largely what makes people suspicious. Can you name for me any other scientific topic that politicians these last 50 years have been so vociferous about?

cheers for the advice

Thanks for the link, but they don't show programs overseas. Thanks for that.

Might a poor ex-pat request from those at home a brief synopsis of the BBC program yesterday?

I don't think most the events you list are climate. I'd say they are weather. If you have details of how some hypothesize about magnetism's effect on climate, maybe you could let us see it in the thread on climate science?

4 gallons? That'll take you all day! What fruit press did you get? It seems to me that you are the sort that could get into winemaking. There are literally hundreds of different recipes based on local produce; plums, cherries, pears, apples, parsnips, various flowers, the possibilities are almost endless. All you'll need is patience. It takes about 18 months for the wines to mature. I have done it, but I'm not so patient, so I stick to brewing ale. Perhaps you can get from Amazon a copy of First Steps in Winemaking by C J J Berry. Excellent book, fully explained and hundreds of recipes using local produce. PS.......keep the little black flies out of your cider, or else you'll get vinegar instead!

Thanks. Regarding buckets and seawater intakes, it sounds like baloney to me. In those days they only had spirit or mercury thermometers, and on ships they read accurate to within 1 degree C or so. I bet if I use the same thermometer, I will get exactly the same temperature from a sample in the cooling system strainer and from a bucket. What about the "don't knows" ? I'd say they are the majority.

I bow to your mathematics Sparticle; now what is r? Regarding ship's engine rooms in the middle of the last century, they would probably not have been any warmer than they are today, namely 45 degrees C at the most. Also, boiler rooms were separate to engine rooms. Where was the bucket dipped in? Near the condenser discharge or near its intake? It must be clear that the engine room air temperature could hardly affect the sea water temperature significantly. What about where the ship was and seasonal temparture changes? I mean, the Arabian Gulf can well exceed 35 degrees C in mid summer, but in winter it can be a balmy 15 degrees. The variables are many, and no wonder climate scientists bicker over data.

That reminds me of Simon Schama and his History of Britain. Skara Brae in the Bronze Age had a climate similar to UIshant, or even Belle Isle in the Bay of Biscay today. Evidence? DNA from fish species found in a Skara Brae rubbish tip. More theory and less hypothesis I'd say.