Another week of GW news - January 21, 2007
steve....@nuclear.com
> Another week of GW news - January 21, 2007
>
> Speculation and leaks are the order of the day with the upcoming [Feb 2nd]
> release of the 2007 IPCC report looming large: ...
Well, the only thing that's being released Feb 2 is the WG1 Summary for
Policymakers, the final draft of which goes to the plenary delegates
next week for line-by-line review/modification/approval. The body of
the WG1 report itself is scheduled to be released in May.
The plenary delegates are political appointees of the IPCC member
nations. There is no requirement that nations appoint scientists as
their delegates, and there's been no roster in the past to show how
many actually did.
In 1995, revisions to the main report after the plenary caused quite a
ruckus. In 2001, the main report wasn't released until 8 months after
the Summary was made public. There was no big ruckus, but the main
report had been revised to conform to changes made at the plenary. For
example, the more scientific front end of the assessment report
drafting process had ended with a draft Summary which specified that
"much" of the recent warming might be anthropogenic. The line-by-line
plenary review resulted in a change to that line, and thus was born
what I think is the most widely-quoted sentence in the TAR: "There is
new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the
last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
I can sure understand why IPCC wants summaries to actually reflect the
body of the report. But the notion that the scientific report should be
modified to be consistent with the plenary seems backwards from a
scientific perspective. I respectfully urge IPCC to consider how best
to ensure that the political dog does not wag the scientific tail. One
obvious way is to finalize the main report before writing summary.
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
Joe Fischer, or is it Leprechans flying out of Jesus YHVH's Ass?
Make up your mind and tell the public where you stand, Sociopath Joe
Fischer.
Science explains freezing cold very well with no help from Jesus's
hemorrhoids. Science knows how to make refrigerators, freezers, even
solid CO2 and liquid air. IN EVERY SINGLE CASE it uses expanding gases.
Nature does the same thing.
What hit California and the midwest used to be called Hurricane IOKE
last August.
First Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy is neither created and
destroyed. IOKE was not destroyed. It was tracked on satellites, much
too big to hide under some republican cocksucking rightwinger rug. As
the masses of tropical heat-laden clouds were photographed passing
north over Alaska the heavy rains were recorded ant many weather
stations down on the ground. We saved both the satpix and the
temperature readings: 59 degrees F.
Next we recorded a 38,000 square mile PERMANENT ICE melt 10 feet thick
in the Beaufort Sea.
Sociopath Joe Fischer, with Exxon's dick in his mouth, do you believe
in science? Do you believe that it take 79 calories to melt on wee
little gram of ice? Do you believe that the latent heat of fusion in
that ice melt stored 27,000,000 tons of TNT explosive energy in the
Beaufort Sea?
Do you think that 27 megatons of energy was destroyed, dicksucker?
Now that 27,000,000 tons of TNT explosive heat energy is being
released from guess where? Can you say "Beaufort Sea" boys and girls? I
know you can.
That energy is changed. It's not 59 degrees anymore, is it? But even at
zero, even below zero, calories are still calories, and are not
destroyed. In order to freeze water MUST release 79 frozen calories per
gram, at zero degrees temperature celsius. That energy is now expansion
energy, Sociopath Joe Fischer, and where do you think ground zero on
the coldest spot in the world is Sociopath Joe Fischer?
Correctamundo!!! You are correct sir, the Beaufort Sea.
How do we know that is the exact spot the cold is coming from? Well
because we turn to http:wunderground.com and look at their temperature
maps for the arctic circle. See how easy science is in the 21st
century, Sociopath Joe Fischer?
Because the world turns there is an eastwards torque on air masses
coming out of the Arctic. You can animate these maps over days and
watch the hurricane IOKE pulse cold waves out from the Beaufort Sea
area.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/CN/2xTemperature.html
http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/EU/2xTemperature.html
http://www.wunderground.com/global/Region/AS/2xTemperature.html
You can also see that the warmest part of the Arctic circle is the part
farthest away from the Beaufort Sea across the top of the world.
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/IOKE_into_Arctic.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Melt.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Mystery_Solved/Ice_Mystery_Solved.html
http://h2-pv.us/1/temp_sep_06/IOKE_IR_Funktops.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/Bebinca_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca/ioke_bebinca_compare.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_to_Alaska/Bebinca_to_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Bebinca_into_Alaska//Bebinca_into_Alaska2.html
http://h2-pv.us/Temp_5/Shanshan_Tornadoes.html
Now where do you stand in the face of clear unambiguous evidence:
Science? Or Jesus's Asshole, asshole?