Global warming science alarming..
Harry Hope
From The BBC, 11/24/09:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375576.stm
Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
Three UK groups studying climate change have issued a strong statement
about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases
across the world.
The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research
Council (Nerc) say the science of climate change is more alarming than
ever.
They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent
droughts were consistent with emerging patterns.
Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen
next month.
'Loss of wildlife'
In a statement calling for action to cut carbon emissions,
institutions said evidence for "dangerous, long-term and potentially
irreversible climate change" was growing.
Global carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise, Arctic summer ice
cover was lower in 2007 and 2008 than in the previous few decades, and
the last decade has been the warmest on average for 150 years.
The best thing we could do is to prepare for the worst.
Build better flood defences in vulnerable areas
Persistent drought in Australia and rising sea levels in the Maldives
were further indicators of possible future patterns, they said.
They argue that without action there will be much larger changes in
the coming decades, with the UK seeing higher food prices, ill health,
more flooding and rising sea levels.
Known or probable damage across the world includes ocean
acidification, loss of rainforests, degradation of ecosystems and
desertification, they said.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned
that the world faced more droughts, floods, loss of wildlife, rising
seas and refugees.
But Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist of the Met Office,
Professor Alan Thorpe, Nerc's chief executive, and Lord Rees,
president of the Royal Society, said cutting emissions could
substantially limit the severity of climate change.
Copenhagen summit
Prof Slingo told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the importance of the
statement was that "it emphasises that whilst global mean temperature
changes may not sound very large, the regional consequences of those
are very great indeed".
She said:
"As the inter-governmental panel on climate change stated very clearly
in 2007, without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions we
can likely, very likely, expect a world of increasing droughts,
floods, species loss, rising seas [and] displaced human populations.
___________________________________________________
Harry
TUKA
>
> From The BBC, 11/24/09:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375576.stm
>
> Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
>
>
> Three UK groups studying climate change have issued a strong statement
> about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases
> across the world.
>
And here is the data it's all based on:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
End of the world prediction score prior to last week:
0 for 10,000
Score now stands at zero for 10,001 after last week. Global warming is a crock.
The CRU temperature data is simply made up. "Peer reviewed", my ass.
--
When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems tend to look
like nails. -- Abraham Maslow
tunderbar
How about we start an audit of their emails, data and computer model
code? Huh?
That'd be inerestin'.
mrbawana2u
> From The BBC, 11/24/09:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375576.stm
> The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research
> Council (Nerc) say the science of climate change is more alarming than
> ever.
pathetic collection of incompetent fucktards and lunatics.
>[...]
TUKA
>
> How about we start an audit of their emails, data and computer model
> code? Huh?
>
> That'd be inerestin'.
It is indeed:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
--
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge
of our attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
Ouroboros Rex
> On 2009-11-24, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> From The BBC, 11/24/09:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375576.stm
>>
>> Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
>>
>>
>> Three UK groups studying climate change have issued a strong
>> statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of
>> greenhouse gases across the world.
>>
>
> And here is the data it's all based on:
>
> http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
>
> End of the world prediction score prior to last week:
>
> 0 for 10,000
>
> Score now stands at zero for 10,001 after last week. Global warming
> is a crock. The CRU temperature data is simply made up. "Peer
> reviewed", my ass.
The usual assortment of denialist lies. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On 2009-11-24, tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How about we start an audit of their emails, data and computer model
>> code? Huh?
>>
>> That'd be inerestin'.
>
> It is indeed:
>
> http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
In other words, more nothing. lol
Last Post
> From The BBC, 11/24/09:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375576.stm
•• ROTFLMAO !!
The BEEB, home to islamo-fascist
and AGW alarmist propaganda 24/7/365
> Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
•• What does that really mean? It sounds to me
like AGW alarmist propaganda.
>
> Three UK groups studying climate change have issued a strong statement
> about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases
> across the world.
•• Since it has been proved that "greenhouse
gases" have little or no impact on climate,
so what is the problem??
>
> The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research
> Council (Nerc) say the science of climate change is more alarming than
> ever.
•• The Royal Society, my oh my, has destroyed
its venerable reputation by publishing Mann
and Briffa's paper without the data necessary
for peer review. When a court ordered the
data produced, it proved to be a
"cherry-picked fraud.
•• Met office can't even forecast, with reasonable
accuracy, next weeks weather.
•• Natural Environment Research Council - well
the less said about it the better
> They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent
> droughts were consistent with emerging patterns.
•• While that is true, the authors claim that was
from warming, when in fact it is a harbinger
of the end of the interglacial period.
> Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen
> next month.
•• Nothing good and hopefully nothing bad is
going to happen in Copenhagen. Probably
nothing but some sanctimonious speeches
with booze and big cigars
> 'Loss of wildlife'
>
> In a statement calling for action to cut carbon emissions,
> institutions said evidence for "dangerous, long-term and potentially
> irreversible climate change" was growing.
•• Those boobs don't get it: "climate change"
IS irreversible
> Global carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise,
•• minimaly
> Arctic summer ice
> cover was lower in 2007 and 2008 than in the previous few decades,
•• Hogwash!!!
> the last decade has been the warmest on average for 150 years.
•• More Hogwash
> The best thing we could do is to prepare for the worst.
•• Those rubes have no clue. They will do
everything wrong
> Build better flood defences in vulnerable areas
•• What defences in what areas
> Persistent drought in Australia
•• Drought in Australia is only a sometimes thing
> and rising sea levels in the Maldives
•• There are no "rising sea levels"in the
Maldives despite its President's antics and
efforts to cash in.
> were further indicators of possible future patterns, they said.
•• Indeed they spoke wrong.
> They argue that without action there will be much larger changes in
> the coming decades, with the UK seeing higher food prices, ill health,
> more flooding and rising sea levels.
>
> Known or probable damage across the world includes ocean
> acidification, loss of rainforests, degradation of ecosystems and
> desertification, they said.
>
> In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned
> that the world faced more droughts, floods, loss of wildlife, rising
> seas and refugees.
>
> But Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist of the Met Office,
> Professor Alan Thorpe, Nerc's chief executive, and Lord Rees,
> president of the Royal Society, said cutting emissions could
> substantially limit the severity of climate change.
>
•• These yo yo's should know that "cutting
emissions" will cut their own throats
> Prof Slingo said:
> "As the inter-governmental panel on climate change stated very clearly
> in 2007, without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions we
> can likely, very likely, expect a world of increasing droughts,
> floods, species loss, rising seas [and] displaced human populations.
•• Everything in the IPCC #4 report has been
discredited from the temperature data to the
sea levels to the polar icecaps. Only the
propaganda is real.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
I M @ good guy
wrote:
I think there are organizations that review all emails
on their servers, as long as the employees are warned,
it may be acceptable.
Bret Cahill
High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
AGW.
Bret Cahill
mrbawana2u
> BUTTWHATABOUTTHEMHACKEDEMAILS?
>
> High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> AGW.
agw is a hoax, fucktard.
But, anyhow, you shit eating cornholer,
tell us about all the successful experiments in changing the global
climate.
It's a short list (NONE), you shit eating cornholer, it shouldn't take
too long.
> Bret Cornholer
>[garbage flush]
Bret Cahill
>
> > High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> > AGW.
>
> agw is a hoax,
Cowardly rightards try to cut / snip the truth but it just get's
reposted:
tg
> On Nov 24, 10:45 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > BUTTWHATABOUTTHEMHACKEDEMAILS?
>
> > High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> > AGW.
>
> agw is a hoax, fucktard.
>
> But, anyhow, you shit eating cornholer,
> tell us about all the successful experiments in changing the global
> climate.
>
What would such an experiment look like? IOW, what *is* 'global
climate' anyway?
Come on you Talk-Radio PhD's, let's hear it. Start by explaining what
"average" means.
-tg
mrbawana2u
> On Nov 24, 11:03 pm, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 10:45 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > BUTTWHATABOUTTHEMHACKEDEMAILS?
>
> > > High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> > > AGW.
>
> > agw is a hoax, fucktard.
>
> > But, anyhow, you shit eating cornholer,
> > tell us about all the successful experiments in changing the global
> > climate.
>
> What would such an experiment look like? IOW, what *is* 'global
> climate' anyway?
Just say, "science has never changed the global climate", fucktard.
> Come on you Talk-Radio PhD's, let's hear it. Start by explaining what
> "average" means.
You have a hard time staying on subject, you ignorant fucktard>
mrbawana2u
> > > BUTTWHATABOUTTHEMHACKEDEMAILS?
>
> > > High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> > > AGW.
>
> > agw is a hoax,
>
> Cowardly rightards try to cut / snip the truth but it just get's
> reposted:
tg
The real question:
WTF *is* global climate change?
Creationists always claim that evolution isn't demonstrated because
the 'link' between two species is missing. But when someone finds a
fossil (B) that is intermediate between (A) and (C), the creationists
want something that's between A and B.
So we have the same phenomenon with climate deniers; they never define
what global climate change would look like, and then they claim that
"humans have never caused global climate change". But we know that
humans have caused climate change many times, and *any* climate change
*is* a global climate change.
Gotta wonder what they are actually thinking, if anything.
-tg
tunderbar
Sirius
> So we have the same phenomenon with climate deniers; they never define
> what global climate change would look like, and then they claim that
> "humans have never caused global climate change". But we know that
> humans have caused climate change many times, and *any* climate change
> *is* a global climate change.
I suppose that if UAH temperature statistics were beginning to show a
real hockey stick shape, or a significant statistical departure from
"natural" variations, or better if decisive evidence of the x3 positive
feedback supposed by the IPCC models were found, most skeptics would
admit these facts as a clear indication of a non "natural" global warming.
But until now it has not been the case.
However, note that systems with a strong positive feedback are seldom
found and never last a long time. If, indeed, a human made global warming
exists, it would be, probably, not as strong as predicted by the IPCC
models.
Fred Weiss
> BUTTWHATABOUTTHEMHACKEDEMAILS?
>
> High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> AGW.
No, Brat, AGW was already discredited.
All the emails do is confirm that the AGWers know it themselves.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> > AGW.
> No, Brat, AGW was already discredited.
By yer creationist "experts"?
Bret Cahill
DanB
Hay Fred,
You still around?!
Glad to see that video you made is still on youtube.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHZRSlhJxY>
Gota keep those nutters straightened out!
I see you have GW covered now too!
mrbawana2u
More than a bit retarded, ain't you fucktard?
> [garbage flushed]
I M @ good guy
It is hard to believe they don't know why the
data doesn't agree with the models, or even why
the data doesn't show more warming.
How could it be possible to change everything
involved in the process of calculating the annual
average global temperature and get an consistent
result?
It would be difficult to estimate how much the
latent heat of fusion in the areas of eastern Europe
where weather stations were shut down affects
the results, or how much the oceans turn over.
But if the oceans do turn over a lot at any
time, we could find out what a lot of cooling
means.
Global warming is preferable to cooling.
John Stafford
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> It is hard to believe they don't know why the
> data doesn't agree with the models, or even why
> the data doesn't show more warming.
I've read a lot of the HARRY_README.txt and clearly the
researcher/programmer was in an impossible position. The data
conventions were practically nonexistent, undocumented, unreliable, in
a word: JUNK! Junk science.
And again, why did they not use standard statistical and modeling
software rather than the trash code that nobody could understand?
There remains the unanswered question - does any agency have reliable,
provable data?
Last Post
> But Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist of the Met Office,
> Professor Alan Thorpe, Nerc's chief executive, and Lord Rees,
> president of the Royal Society, said cutting emissions could
> substantially limit the severity of climate change.
•• Prof Slingo, couldn't even get last summer's
weather right how can she claim ability to
direct a process that has operated in 100,000
year cycles for 500 million years or more.
•• Now Lord Rees whose eminence is sitting on a deck
of cards and whose bottom depends on whether or
not he is hauled into court for permitting the
unpermitable — publishing, without peer review,
Mike Mann and Keith Briffa's cherry picked cherry
trees.
•• Now Thorpe, Natural Environment Research
Council depends on IPCC and the fascist
governments to succeed or he is out of a cushy job
NERC will be no more. If he was really smart, he
would stay mum and out of sight, and sty out the
firing line — but he is not.
Fred Weiss
> Global warming is preferable to cooling.
That's true, too. So one wonders what all the..err...heat was about,
anyway.
Esp. since the enviroHysterics were first predicting a new Ice Age.
Fred Weiss
Errol
> More than a bit retarded, ain't you fucktard?
>
I can tell you must be really popular with hookers and rent boys, what
with your glib and sophisticated way with words.
Bret Cahill
Well they have some hacked Emails which means there is nothing to
worry about!
> But we know that
> humans have caused climate change many times, and *any* climate change
> *is* a global climate change.
Then they just change the issue to "a warmer climate is a good
thing . . ."
> Gotta wonder what they are actually thinking, if anything.
Looneytarians are always thinking of a way to continue collectivizing
costs and privatizing profits even though almost all of them come out
net losers.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Try not to spree but if you do spree, spree local. Just shoot up the
trailer park.
Bret Cahill
mrbawana2u
> Bet Cornhole
Yes, the lib-turd-retard Bet Cornhole,
is more than a bit retarded.
mrbawana2u
> On Nov 26, 4:22 am,mrbawana2u<mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > More than a bit retarded, ain't you fucktard?
>
I have no interest in your delusion of relevancy, fucktard.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>In article <igqtg59baogibn5pi...@4ax.com>,
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>> It is hard to believe they don't know why the
>> data doesn't agree with the models, or even why
>> the data doesn't show more warming.
>
>I've read a lot of the HARRY_README.txt and clearly the
>researcher/programmer was in an impossible position. The data
>conventions were practically nonexistent, undocumented, unreliable, in
>a word: JUNK! Junk science.
There is several reasons for the situation, some that
were not anybody's fault.
>And again, why did they not use standard statistical and modeling
>software rather than the trash code that nobody could understand?
I haven't bothered with the code, I think I saw
a snippet of what Hansen wrote in the 1970s, not
really a program though.
>There remains the unanswered question - does any agency have reliable,
>provable data?
Not other than satellite and sea surface data,
most of the problem is the result of the breakup
of the Soviet Union and the closing of many of
weather stations in eastern Europe where the
weather was cold.
Then GISS completely changed the list of
stations used, resulting in a gross discontinuity.
I have some confidence in the data beginning
in about 1990 or so, but the data before that may
not be even in the same range.
They began using digital recorders in many
locations in the same time frame.
When Canada first went metric, they used
integers, but the aviation industry complained
that there wasn't good enough resolution with
the bigger metric units to warn of carburetor
icing, and they went to two decimal metric.
Then each of the climate organizations
began using their own methods of extracting
anomalies from different baselines, and the
result is hash.
All I can see is that the apparent plateau
of annual global average temperatures is
testimony of the discontinuity, and really
a condemnation of the gross changes all
at the same time.
Last Post
>
> High school drop out rightards think a couple Emails can discredit
> AGW.
>
understand that the contents of those emails added
to the numerous skeptics' work absolutely
disqualifies all of the alarmist's programme.
Last Post
•• Even more than you???
gordo
Please post something useful.For example I work as a shill for the tar
sands or I have some real good science to show you.Emails will not
discredit AGW .If you have real evidence based on science that can be
peer reviewed about global warming please submit it.I would sure feel
relieved.By the way this does not mean that there are not real
problems with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.Do your own
research and see what marine scientists are writing about the
acidification of the oceans.
TUKA
> TUKA wrote:
>> On 2009-11-24, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From The BBC, 11/24/09:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8375576.stm
>>>
>>> Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
>>>
>>>
>>> Three UK groups studying climate change have issued a strong
>>> statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of
>>> greenhouse gases across the world.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
>>
>> End of the world prediction score prior to last week:
>>
>> 0 for 10,000
>>
>> Score now stands at zero for 10,001 after last week. Global warming
>> is a crock. The CRU temperature data is simply made up. "Peer
>> reviewed", my ass.
>
> The usual assortment of denialist lies. lol
The usual complete lack of any content at all. Red herrings,
dismissiveness, and ad-hominem are all you have. And now you don't even
have your precious "peer-reviewed science". Wheel that one out? People
laugh in your face.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
TUKA
>>>
>>> How about we start an audit of their emails, data and computer model
>>> code? Huh?
>>>
>>> That'd be inerestin'.
>>
>> It is indeed:
>>
>> http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
>
> In other words, more nothing. lol
>
Dismissiveness, red herrings, and ad-hominem. That's
all you have. Even your precious "peer-reviewed science"
now can only garner snickers.
Last evidence wins, and you ain't got any.
tg
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:13:27 -0800, tg wrote :
>
> > So we have the same phenomenon with climate deniers; they never define
> > what global climate change would look like, and then they claim that
> > "humans have never caused global climate change". But we know that
> > humans have caused climate change many times, and *any* climate change
> > *is* a global climate change.
>
> I suppose that if UAH temperature statistics were beginning to show a
> real hockey stick shape, or a significant statistical departure from
> "natural" variations, or better if decisive evidence of the x3 positive
> feedback supposed by the IPCC models were found, most skeptics would
> admit these facts as a clear indication of a non "natural" global warming.
So you are saying that in a "natural" global warming the temperature
statistics being used would not go up? Brings a whole new meaning to
the word "kook".
> But until now it has not been the case.
> However, note that systems with a strong positive feedback are seldom
> found
You mean like forest fires?
You mean like desertification?
You mean like ice reduction through increased insolation through ice
reduction?
> and never last a long time.
By definition, unless you believe in perpetual motion machines. I
guess since forest fires eventually burn up all the fuel, we should
ignore them.
>If, indeed, a human made global warming
> exists, it would be, probably, not as strong as predicted by the IPCC
> models.
"Not as strong". Very scientific. No Scotsmen here...
-tg