On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:25:08 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Good for you. Sadly, those of us with more than a grade school education
in science...

The problem is that it doesn't take much to generate almost any
desired result. Three years ago, I jumped in with both feet with a
simple illustration. Based upon the historical data from the local
water district rainfall data, I can conjur a hocky stick in either up
or down direction by simply changing the order of the polynomial
expansion for polynomial trend line. See stuff at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

The graph at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
shows both an upward and downward hocky stick. I waved this at the
local water district and offered to endorse either a drought or a
deluge depending on what was expedient. The water board was not happy
with me.

The original Excel spreadsheet is at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast-06.xls
Check the graph settings for other interesting effects. One gotcha. I
just noticed that the graphs only work in Microsloth Excel and don't
convert into Open Office Calc. I'll see if I can fix that and save a
version that works in OO Calc.

If you look at the 11 year moving average graph carefully,
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg
you'll see the drop in rainfall during the 1920-1935 drought.

I'm kinda amused at the new credibility that the IPCC has obtain from
organizations and individuals that have never trusted the government
to get any numbers even close to accurate in the past. Yet, when it
comes to climate predictions, the government sponsored and funded
conglomeration of like thinking scientists is beyond question.

To insure accuracy, the current statistical high fashion is to
"combine" all the various historical proxy data sets. The assumption
is that the errors will average out or cancel. Two or more wrongs
don't make a right. It's more like garbage in, and more garbage out.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/loehle-proxies-2/
More current, predicting continued global cooling using satellite
data:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

As for C02 being the ultimate culprit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

Ok, back to bookkeeping. I needed the rant and distraction.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS