Yet another cold Winter

[TimberWolf]

My mother bought herself a portable gas heater for use in the conservatory, and when she told me on the phone I told her it was a death trap and generally tried to put her off. The compromise was that she would leave the door to the house ajar a bit. I'm not sure whether I was overreacting though. It does have a CO detector, though I'm not sure I'd trust it.

[Spacecadet]

My mother bought herself a portable gas heater for use in the conservatory, and when she told me on the phone I told her it was a death trap and generally tried to put her off. The compromise was that she would leave the door to the house ajar a bit. I'm not sure whether I was overreacting though. It does have a CO detector, though I'm not sure I'd trust it.

she could try not sitting in the conservatory when it's cold

just a suggestion like

[TimberWolf]

she could try not sitting in the conservatory when it's cold

just a suggestion like

It's her favourite place. She can watch the birds and the garden etc. It's also got central heating, but for reasons that escape me she doesn't use it in that room. To be honest I think it was a Jones' thing, a relative bought one and it looked nice etc. Female logic.

[pjclarke]

The sciencey bit....

Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level. Increase the period by a single year, or use a different dataset, eg NASA, and you achieve statistical significance.

Evidence
Discussion

As to the imminent cold weather, well, sorry guys, but that satire has already been done....

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

[d000hg]

Facts? You can prove anything that's true with facts.

[DimPrawn]

Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level. Increase the period by a single year, or use a different dataset, eg NASA, and you achieve statistical significance.

Evidence
Discussion

As to the imminent cold weather, well, sorry guys, but that satire has already been done....

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

Britain's worst November freeze for 17 years is on its way! | Mail Online

The earliest prolonged cold spell for 17 years will take a grip on Britain from today.

Heavy snowfalls will begin a ‘big freeze’ that could last ten days, forecasters have warned.

Arctic conditions are expected to sweep across the country over the week, depositing up to ten inches of snow in the worst affected areas.

Forecasters say it is likely to be the earliest significant snow over a ‘large part of the country’ since 1993 and appears to indicate a trend of winter starting earlier than ever.


Take that you Charlatan!

[BlasterBates]

Warming was caused by cosmic rays.

New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10...10941-2010.pdf

The composite sample shows a positive correlation between statistically significant cloud changes and variations in the short-term GCR flux (Fig. 1): increases in the GCR flux
occur around day −5 of the composite, and correspond to significant localised mid-latitude increases in cloud change. After this time, the GCR flux undergoes a statistically significant decrease (1.2 GU) centred on the key date of the composite; these changes correspond to widespread statistically significant decreases in cloud change (3.5 CU, 1.9 CU globallyaveraged) over mid-latitude regions.

.... to AGW bozo's that means.

Your theory has now has massive holes in it.

[DimPrawn]

Warming was caused by cosmic rays.

New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10...10941-2010.pdf




.... to AGW bozo's that means.

Your theory has now has massive holes in it.

Can't tax cosmic rays, so we'll have to stick with the CO2 scam for now.

[Spacecadet]

Hands up all those that believe that 'no statistically significant warming for 15 years' is the same thing as 'it has not warmed significantly for 15 years'?

The usual test for the statistical significance of a trend calculation is 95%. In plain English, if there there is a greater than 1-in-20 chance that the calculated trend may be a result of noise, or an artifact of the calculation, then the trend fails to achieve statistical significance.

FACT: The Hadcrut data has a warming trend, in line with model projections. Over this period it achieves a significance just short of the 95% level.

So it fails.
Anything you say after that is excuse making and trying to make the facts fit the expectation

[d000hg]

Warming was caused by cosmic rays.

New peer reviewed research, hot off the press:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10...10941-2010.pdf

I like how you need to mention things are peer-reviewed, the implication being most anti-GW papers are unsubstantiated drivel.

Also, a LOT of crap papers get put out there, it doesn't mean they're worth anything... just read scientific american for crackpot theories on physics and cosmology.