Greenhouse gases reach record levels

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Harry Hope

unread,
Nov 23, 2009, 9:39:09 PM11/23/09
to

From Reuters, 11/23/09:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AM2FF

By Robert Evans

GENEVA

Concentrations of greenhouse gases, the major cause of global warming,
are at their highest levels ever recorded and are still climbing, the
U.N. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Monday.

The head of the agency, Michel Jarraud, said the trend could be
pushing the world towards the most pessimistic assessments of the rise
in temperatures expected in coming decades and said this underlined
the need for urgent action.

The worst-case scenario envisaged by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change) in a 2007 report was that temperatures could rise
by between 2.4 and 6.4 Celsius by the end of this century.

The Group of Eight and other major economies agreed at a summit in
Italy in July to try to limit the rise to 2 Celsius.

Carbon dioxide <CO2/EUR> is entering the atmosphere at an accelerating
rate, Jarraud told a news conference in Geneva to present the agency's
annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.

"The CO2 content in the atmosphere rose slightly faster in 2008 than
over the last decade when the growth rate was 1.9 parts per million,"
he said.

"Levels of most greenhouse gases continue to increase," said the WMO,
in the report issued before next month's U.N. climate change
conference in Copenhagen, aimed at reaching a new international accord
to fight global warming.

It said the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 385.2 parts
per million in 2008, up 2 parts per million in one year.

GREENHOUSE GASES AT RECORD

"In 2008 global concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide, which are the main long-lived greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, reached the highest levels recorded since pre-industrial
times," the WMO said.

The major focus at the Copenhagen summit, from December 7-18, is how
targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, caused mainly by burning
fossil fuels like oil and gas, can be agreed and put into a new
international treaty. [ID:nNGEESAL07Q]

Hopes of a legally binding agreement have slipped amid continuing
disagreements between rich and poorer nations over how the burden
should be shared.

Jarraud said the data showed "we are actually closer to the
pessimistic scenario" for warming in the coming years.

_______________________________________________________

Harry

buzz

unread,
Nov 24, 2009, 2:02:28 AM11/24/09
to

The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is not CO2, but water
vapor.

Too bad Hairy.

Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...MMM MMM MMM

Simple-minded dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.

Message has been deleted

pyjamarama

unread,
Nov 24, 2009, 1:24:16 PM11/24/09
to


Sorry, hairless -- your climate change fraud has been exposed...

You're through.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global
Warming'?

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global
Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and
quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at
the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU)
and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.
(Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72
documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have
preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this
scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged
emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists
pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal
destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to
disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their
public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of
John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the
Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent
of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the
way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed
evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged
emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed
the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess
up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious
practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961
for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in
the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his
new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Nexttime I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted
to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH
records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly
2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than
the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard
to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative
“MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction
available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer
review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in
which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank,
whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not
publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a
solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I
think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in
the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers
in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or
request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the
editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a
few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words
with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to
discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story
up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie”
– Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data
in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had
risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the
last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in
contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international
scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers
it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU,
established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body
which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is
one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by
the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin
of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course.
In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and
grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media.
And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist
activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane
Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding
because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you
take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant
to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher
taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s
Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is
now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood
(and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are
too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in
terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
credibility which is never likely to recover.

Tags: AGW, Andrew Bolt, Climategate, Hadley CRU, ManBearPig, scandal

Message has been deleted

Tom Sr.

unread,
Nov 24, 2009, 7:19:05 PM11/24/09
to
On Nov 24, 3:29 pm, Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> You do understand that there is no current global warming, do you not?

Please give at least *one* citation from a peer-reviewed article
published in a professional climate-related journal or magazine that
supports this *claim* by you.

And while you are at it, Heil:

-----
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94
-----

Above is the link to 169 megabytes of all the emails and files that
were hacked by some on the far-right-wing. You can download 26-
megabyte FOI2009.zip from there, then unpack it. You’ll have to set up
a free account before you can download the file.

So once you ultraconservative, anti-science, reactionary k00ks are
done reading the material, get back to us rational people with exact
quotes, in context, with reference locations that prove your *claims*
that climate change is a fraud.

We'll be waiting, Heil!

-Tom Sr.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages