Xtra News Community 2
July 11, 2020, 08:25:01 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 55   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”  (Read 18025 times)
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 31011


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #50 on: November 12, 2009, 05:28:39 pm »


Seas may rise even higher

By KIRAN CHUG - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Thursday, 12 November 2009

Scientists are predicting seas will rise higher than the levels the Environment Ministry advises local councils to plan for.

Delegates in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate change conference next month are to be told of the new predictions, which draw on new satellite images of Greenland and Antarctica.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted a sea level rise of up to 59 centimetres by the end of the century. However, the director of the Antarctic Research Centre, Tim Naish, said the international community now believed sea levels could rise by 1.9 metres.

Environment Minister Nick Smith said the Government was working on establishing a national environmental standard on planning for sea levels, which he hoped would be in place next year.

He hoped to put the standard out for consultation next year, but said it was likely that councils would still be required to plan for a rise of 59cm.

"The Government is not going to consider adjusting its policy every week," Dr Smith said.

In its advice to councils, the ministry says that as sea levels rise, more high tides will flood coastal land. Waves will have more chance of attacking backshores and foredunes, and erosion of beaches will worsen. More estuaries and harbours will flood, cliffs will retreat, and existing coastal defences could be damaged. That could leave the land and buildings behind existing sea walls without protection.

Ministry senior analyst Warren Gray said the current advice to councils was to plan for a sea level rise of 50cm, and consider what a rise of 80cm could mean. He said some were planning for sea level rises of up to 1.5 metres.

"We want people to be safe, but not building defences that are not necessary," he said.

A new IPCC report is not expected to be published until 2013, but Dr Gray said that if an interim report was completed, the ministry's advice could be reviewed.

The new data was presented at a media briefing held by the Science Media Centre and NZ Climate Change Centre in Wellington yesterday.

Dr Naish said he believed that the new figures would impress the urgency of the problem upon policy makers.

They were particularly relevant for New Zealand, where such a large portion of the population lived on the coastline, he said.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3054107/Seas-may-rise-even-higher
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2009, 02:02:33 pm »

East coast swelters as heatwave continues




THE heat has left Melbourne and Adelaide sweltering will hit Sydney this week bringing temperatures nearing 40C tomorrow and remaining in the high 30s though to next weekend.


And there is no relief in sight just yet.

High temperatures are expected for the rest of summer. The bureau predicts minimum temperatures will be well above average from November to January.

Emergency services on alert

In South Australia emergency crews were kept busy containing a series of blazes in blistering heat, with three of the largest fires destroying nearly 300ha.

On Yorke Peninsula, farm machinery is believed to have started a 60ha grass fire at Maitland about 11.30am.

Six Country Fire Service appliances, a bulk water carrier and specialist farm units brought the flames under control within an hour and protected a house.

At Wynarka, about 50km east of Murray Bridge, about 200ha was destroyed in a grass fire on the Tailem Bend-Karoonda road that started at about 1pm. Police closed the road after visibility was reduced because of thick smoke, and re-opened it by 3.30pm.

CFS spokeswoman Karina Loxton appealed for continued vigilance over the coming few days.

"We urge everyone to do the right thing and watch their activities, particularly in total fire ban areas," she said. Meanwhile, a number of events have been cancelled today due to the heat.

These include the Rundle Street Market, The Big Aussie Swap event that was to have been held in Whitmore Square, the Gilles St markets and the Ovarian Cancer Challenge Walkathon scheduled for 10am at Semaphore.

Monarto zoo is also closed due to the threat of bushfires.

In Victoria temperatures in the Mallee region are predicted to hit 41C on Saturday and Sunday and 37C on Monday.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) state duty officer Dennis Ward warned people conducting their own bushfire preparations in parts of the state without fire restrictions to remain vigilant.

"People need to be aware that we've had a long, hot, dry period and it's going to continue for bit,'' he said.

"The main thing is that people be aware and be careful, particularly those doing their own fire protection.''

El Nino driving temperatures

NSW Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Elly Spark said the hot weather was caused by a backdrop of El Nino and a very hot air mass over central Australia.

Northwesterly winds, generated by a high-pressure system in the Tasman Sea, were carrying this hot air to the NSW coast.

"Generally, conditions over inland NSW have been hot to very hot, and they will continue that way for some time," Ms Spark said.

"On November 3, the temperature at Penrith hit 39.4 degrees.

"There will be a change on Tuesday, but by the end of the week conditions are going to get very hot again.

"On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, temperatures in western Sydney will be on the rise.

"Penrith is expected to have a 37-degree day on Thursday, followed by 39 degrees on Friday."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26349733-421,00.html
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2009, 05:36:14 pm »

And dont we live in the luck country with its brrrrrrrrr cold weather  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 31011


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #53 on: November 23, 2009, 05:59:29 pm »


NZ glaciers continuing to shrink

NZPA | 10:55AM - Monday, 23 November 2009

New Zealand's glaciers are continuing to shrink, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) says.

NIWA's annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers showed they lost much more ice than they gained between April 2008 and March 2009.

Scientists flew over 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps and Kaikoura area and photographed the positions of snowlines on glaciers during the survey.

NIWA snow and ice scientist Jordy Hendrikx said above-normal temperatures, near or below-normal rainfall and above-normal sunshine were among the reasons for the continued shrinking.

This year's snowline was, on average, 95 metres above where it needed to be to keep the ice mass constant, NIWA said.

This indicated the loss of glacier mass observed in the 2007-2008 survey had continued.

Over the past 33 years, there had been an overall decrease in the glacier mass balance, despite periods where the balance had increased for a few years.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3088709/NZ-glaciers-continuing-to-shrink



Glaciers continue to shrink

New Zealand’s glaciers lost significant ice mass again last summer.

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research | 23 November 2009

When one portion of snow melts, it takes about two equivalent portions of snow fall to keep a glacier's mass balance the same.

When one portion of snow melts, it takes about two equivalent portions of snow fall to keep a glacier's mass balance the same.

The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has just released the results of its annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers, showing continued loss of glacier mass.

The survey uses a small fixed wing aircraft to fly over 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps and Kaikoura. Scientists take photographs and then analyse the images to determine the position of the snowline after the summer melt but before the first winter snowfall. This provides an index of the mass balance or ’health’ of the glaciers of New Zealand. The survey has been going since 1977.


ROLLESTON GLACIER
                                                        ROLLESTON GLACIER

NIWA Snow and Ice Scientist Dr Jordy Hendrikx says weather patterns over the course of the year from April 2008 to March 2009 meant that overall the glaciers had lost much more ice than they had gained. This was mainly due to the combination of above normal temperatures and near normal or below normal rainfall for the Southern Alps during winter, and La Niña-like patterns producing more northerly flows creating normal-to-above normal temperatures, above normal sunshine, and well below normal precipitation for the Southern Alps particularly during late summer.

The higher the snowline, the more snow is lost to feed the glacier. On average, the snowline this year was about 95 metres above where it would need to be to keep the ice mass constant. This indicates that the loss of glacier mass observed in 2007-08 has continued.


GODLEY & CLASSEN GLACIERS
                                                   GODLEY & CLASSEN GLACIERS

AORAKI-MOUNT COOK, TASMAN GLACIER & HOCHSTETTER ICEFALL
                           AORAKI-MOUNT COOK, TASMAN GLACIER & HOCHSTETTER ICEFALL

AORAKI-MOUNT COOK & TASMAN GLACIER TERMINAL LAKE
                                 AORAKI-MOUNT COOK & TASMAN GLACIER TERMINAL LAKE

When studying and reporting what is happening to glaciers, it is important to look at more than one factor. The position of the end of summer snowline is only part of the story; in New Zealand, an estimated 90% of ice loss from glaciers since 1976 is due to down-wasting and lake calving. NIWA’s snowline surveys show an overall decrease in the glacier mass balance (and thereby volumes) over the past 33 years — but this is punctuated by periods where the prevailing weather conditions caused the glacier mass balance to increase for a few years.

Similarly, glacier terminus position (the “length” of a glacier) can be misleading when considered on its own because total volume can be decreasing even while terminus length is increasing.


BONAR GLACIER & MOUNT ASPIRING
                                              BONAR GLACIER & MOUNT ASPIRING

PARK PASS
                                                               PARK PASS

MOUNT TUTOKO & DONNE GLACIER
                                               MOUNT TUTOKO & DONNE GLACIER

For more information, contact:

Dr Jordy Hendrikx
NIWA Snow & Ice Scientist
Mob: +64 21 039 4711

For images:

Large sized high resolution glacier photographs and graphs showing the changes in glacier ice mass can be downloaded at ftp://ftp.niwa.co.nz/niwamedia/glaciers.

Background information:

1. Worldwide, glaciers are regarded as a useful indicator of global warming, but New Zealand’s glaciers are more complicated because they have their source in areas of extremely high precipitation. West of the Main Divide in the Southern Alps, more than 10 metres (10 000 mm) of precipitation falls each year as clouds are pushed up over the sharply rising mountain ranges. This means the mass and volume of New Zealand’s glaciers is sensitive to changing wind and precipitation patterns as well as to temperature. So, for example, the glaciers advanced during most of the 1980s and 1990s when the area experienced about a 15% increase in precipitation, associated with more El Niño events and stronger westerly winds over New Zealand. The glaciers in parts of Norway are similar.

2. Despite the sensitivity of New Zealand glaciers to changes in both precipitation and temperature, the volume of ice in the Southern Alps dropped by roughly 50% during the last century. New Zealand’s temperature increased by about 1°C over the same period.

3. Globally, most glaciers are retreating. Of the glaciers for which there are continuous data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the mean annual loss in ice thickness since 1980 remains close to half a metre per year. The Service has said that the loss in ice mass “leaves no doubt about the accelerating change in climatic conditions”. For world glacier data, see www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms

4. The level of the glacier snowlines is not necessarily closely related to the amount of snow that falls on the country’s ski fields during winter. Most of the popular ski fields are east of the Main Divide, or in the North Island. Mount Hutt, for instance, gets its snow from big southeasterlies, whereas most of the glaciers are fed by westerlies. The melt season is also of critical importance, so while a glacier may receive “normal” snow accumulation, it could be subject to above normal melt and the net result is a higher snowline and less ice.

5. An estimated 90% of the ice loss from New Zealand glaciers in the Southern Alps since 1976 is due to down-wasting and lake calving mainly from 12 of the largest glaciers on the eastern side of the main divide. These processes are:


  • Down-wasting: ice melts from the top surface of the trunk. Trunks go from their original convex shape to near-straight or even concave (slight hollow in the centre).

  • Lake calving: ice melting at the foot of glaciers & meltwater forming lakes. Some chunks of ice ‘calve’ off glaciers into the lakes (like ice bergs).

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/glaciers-continue-to-shrink2
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Sir Blodsnogger
Guest
« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2009, 04:31:26 am »

Are you ready

to meet your maker?
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 31011


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2009, 02:08:23 pm »


Shrinking glaciers curtail climbing trips

By FLEUR COGLE - The Timaru Herald | 5:00AM - Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Aoraki-Mount Cook's shrinking glaciers are forcing climbers to think more carefully about their excursions into the national park.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) yesterday released the results of its annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers, showing the glaciers continue to shrink. The news is no surprise to those who know the national park.

Veteran mountaineer Gordon Hasell, who has been climbing in the area since the 50s, said that during the 60s the lake at the base of the Tasman Glacier was the same size as the duck pond in Timaru's Botanical Gardens.

"It's now about 4km long."

With a new lake and the increased exposure of the glacier's moraine walls, climbers were being forced to change the way they approached the park.

Mr Hasell said climbers no longer have as easy access to parts of park as they once did.

"Now the major effect excess recession has had is a greater dependence on air access."

Department of Conservation ranger Ray Bellringer said the changes had been "very spectacular and very noticeable over a period".


http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/3090706/Shrinking-glaciers-curtail-climbing-trips
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 31011


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2009, 05:58:51 pm »


The future....

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 31011


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2009, 11:41:50 am »


Wellington could be more like Venice by 2100

By EMILY WATT - The Dominion Post | 5:00AM - Saturday, 05 December 2009

SEA RISE SCENARIO: The computer graphic shows that low-lying parts of central Wellington are at risk of flooding if the sea level rises one metre.

SEA RISE SCENARIO: The computer graphic shows that low-lying parts of central Wellington are at risk of flooding if the sea level rises one metre.

If you want to go to the library, you'll get your feet wet, Wellington police will need boats to get to work, and parts of Customhouse Quay might get a bit soggy.

Wellington City Council has issued a graphic to show how rising sea levels would affect the capital.

"It's important to remember that, for areas such as the CBD, doing nothing is clearly not an option," councillor Ray Ahipene-Mercer said.

"Tools like this help us to assess a range of appropriate response options, and will also help people understand why it is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Local authorities should be preparing for a rise of up to one metre in sea levels by 2100, he said.

The council was shown the computer-generated graphic this week. It showed, if nothing was done to protect the city centre, low-lying parts were at risk of flooding. Sea level rise could also increase erosion and the effects of storm surge.

The council's strategy and policy committee considered this week the draft 2010 climate change action plan. It looked at cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for a rise in temperature and sea level.

Mr Ahipene-Mercer said Wellington had assets worth billions of dollars which could be affected, including roads, railway lines and the city centre.

The council planned to shift the focus to community emissions rather than just the actions of businesses and organisations.

It has set a target to cut community emissions by 3 per cent by June 2013 and committed $35 million towards plans with a climate change focus in its 2009-19 Long-Term Council Community Plan. Projects include walking and cycling plans, intensifying development in the city centre and retro-fitting homes with better insulation.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3129355/Wellington-could-be-more-like-Venice-by-2100



See the following interesting pages on the Wellington City Council website:


Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
bennyboo
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 324


« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2009, 03:25:22 pm »


Galciers were getting smaller in 1888 too... and seeing as that dramatic waterworld graphic of downtown Wellington is being spammed across threads...




THE GLACIAL PERIOD.

Otago Witness , Issue 1893, 2 March 1888, Page 31


The intense cold of the Glacial Period must not be regarded as having been caused by conditions which were permanent in their nature. The period known to geology as the Ice Age was comparatively recent, but there is little doubt that similar periods of great cold preceded it at widely separated intervals, and that these were not occasioned by any mere terrestrial changes, but must be explained by cosmical causes. The most generally accepted explanation of these remarkable conditions is that the orbit of the earth has been in times past much more eccentric, or elongated, than now. This fact, Dr James Croll remarks in his work, " Climate and Time," would not of itself, perhaps, fully account for the low temperature producing the Glacial Period.; but through physical conditions caused by it this term of severe cold might be induced.

It is always, assumed that, owing to the precession of the equinoxes, the winter of. the Northern Hemisphere at this time occurred when the earth was in aphelion, or at the point of its orbit furthest from the sun.

Croll estimates that the heat received then 1 at this point would be so much less than now that the mid-winter temperature would be lowered to an enormous extent, and the winters would not only be much colder, but also much longer than now.
The result of this would be an enormous accumulation of snow and ice during the winter, which the short summer would not suffice to melt.

The influences which brought the Ice Age to a close are supposed by Croll to be a gradual lessening of the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, the movement of the equinoxes bringing the winter solstice of the Northern Hemisphere back to perihelion, or the action of the ocean currents and the trade winds. He supposed, further, that the region of the equator was, during the Glacial Period, submerge — a fact which would tend to the free motion of the waters and the increase of the average warmth of the Southern Hemisphere, and a still further lowering of the temperature on the northern half of the globe. But the elevation of the land about the equator subsequently caused a deflection of the ocean currents northwards and the creation of the great current of the Gulf Stream, which has an enormous influence in the distribution of heat in the Northern Hemisphere.

But the important causes bringing the earth up to its present temperature, like those creating the very great depression of the Glacial Period, were those acting from without rather than existing conditions on the surface of the earth itself.

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=OW18880302.2.135.4&srpos=9&e=-------10--1----2%22ice+age%22-all
Report Spam   Logged
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #59 on: December 06, 2009, 08:17:58 am »

It's about time they bit back!!





UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

The UN's official panel on climate change has hit back at sceptics' claims that the case for human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was "firmly" standing by findings that a rise in the use of greenhouse gases was a factor.

It was responding to a row over the reliability of data from East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit

Leaked e-mail exchanges prompted claims that data had been manipulated.

Last month, hundreds of messages between scientists at the unit and their peers around the world were put on the internet along with other documents.

Some observers alleged one of the e-mails suggested head of the unit Professor Phil Jones wanted certain papers excluded from the UN's next major assessment of climate science.

Professor Jones, who denies this was his intention, has stood down from his post while an independent inquiry takes place.

In a statement, Professor Thomas Stocker and Professor Qin Dahe, co-chairmen of the IPCC's working group 1, condemned the act of posting the private e-mails on the internet, but avoided commenting on their content.

They went on to point to a key finding that states: "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal".

"[It] is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth."

"Through further independent scientific work involving statistical methods and a range of different climate models, these changes have been detected as significant deviations from natural climate variability and have been attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases."

They added: "The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide.

"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these e-mail exchanges."

The row comes ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit which starts on Monday.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, said it was no coincidence the information was released in the run-up to the summit.

He claimed unnamed conspirators could have paid for Russian hackers to break into the university computers to steal the e-mails.

He said the theft was a scandal and was "probably ordered" to disrupt the confidence negotiators have in the science.

Earlier, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC he would be "very surprised" if there had been any wrongdoing on the part of the East Anglia University scientists.

"We're in a moment when the world is about to make some big political decisions," he said.

"And there will be people who don't want the world to make those big decisions and they are trying to use this in part to say somehow this is all in doubt and perhaps we should put the whole thing off.

"Well, I just think they're wrong about that."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was "very clear" and called doubters a "flat Earth group".

He said: "There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change."

'Open and transparent'

Meanwhile, the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans.

Its database is a main source of analysis for the IPCC.

It has written to 188 countries for permission to publish the material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather stations.

John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that.

"So this is not an issue of whether we are confident or not in the figures for the trend in global warming, it's more about being open and transparent," he told the BBC.

The Met Office said it had already planned to publish the material long before the row and denied reports that government ministers had tried to block the publication.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397265.stm
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
bennyboo
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 324


« Reply #60 on: December 06, 2009, 09:16:33 am »

More about that leaked data:

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

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  CRU) and released 61 megabytes 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 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.

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:

Next
time 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” -  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.  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  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 – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, 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 to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Report Spam   Logged
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #61 on: December 06, 2009, 01:03:41 pm »

Being there and done that Bennyboo....

It turned out the guy who commissioned the whole thing is a oil Barron with vested interests in both mining and oil.
It kind of deflated the whole thing really......

A rather weak case in anyone's books.

If only they would show their science backing their claims then perhaps people might listen.
Attacking others is pointless unless you have something to back your own claims up...


Personally - I wish they were right and we were wrong, I wish it was all just one big mistake and it wasn't happening...
But that's not reality.

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
bennyboo
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 324


« Reply #62 on: December 06, 2009, 02:50:03 pm »

There is no excuse for manipulating to influence such an important area of science Dazza. 

There are people grubbing for money all over the global warming industry including bankers, politicians and scientists. 

Since 1990, Phil Jones, the so called scientist behind the latest scandal, has collected £13,700,000 British pounds (US$22,600,000) in grants... if thats not incentive to make data convenient then I dont know what is.

The machine and the show go on with increased urgency - the chorused tones that the debate is over suggests a darker side to me.

The debate isnt over for NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/ 
 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/ 


Nor is it over for some former IPCC scientists - as you can see below:


Report Spam   Logged
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2009, 02:52:56 pm »

It turned out the guy who commissioned the whole thing is a oil Barron with vested interests in both mining and oil.
It kind of deflated the whole thing really......

Where's the proof that it was commissioned by anybody? The first attempt at releasing this information was at the frothing at the mouth humans are bad website Realclimate. When Gavin deleted it, it was then uploaded to Russian servers and then propagated worldwide as people realised the con. It's been spreading like wildfire ever since.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
bennyboo
Bloody-Good Member
*
Posts: 324


« Reply #64 on: December 06, 2009, 03:21:02 pm »


Well I'll be darned!



New Zealand climate agency accused of data manipulation

November 25, 9:23 PM

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (CSC) today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.

At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.

...

Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation

Seems we now have a New Zealand (NIWA) connection to disgraced University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU)

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #65 on: December 06, 2009, 03:54:15 pm »

Since 1990, Phil Jones, the so called scientist behind the latest scandal, has collected £13,700,000 British pounds (US$22,600,000) in grants... if thats not incentive to make data convenient then I dont know what is.

Not to neglect those emails over how to circumvent certain tax laws. While they might be construed as tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion it does indicate a desire to maximise profits.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2009, 03:58:56 pm »


Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted.

I'll defend NIWA a little. They do have cause to adjust temperatures in that thermometer sites have moved (and so forth.) However in saying that they've adjusted them to certain "international accepted standards", standards that are now, obviously in disrepute. Also interesting is NIWA's adjusted figures "show" even greater temperature increases than they're warmist mates around the globe. Something I consider that demonstrates that NIWA, even by disreputed standards, is cooking the data.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #67 on: December 06, 2009, 04:17:50 pm »

It turned out the guy who commissioned the whole thing is a oil Barron with vested interests in both mining and oil.
It kind of deflated the whole thing really......

Where's the proof that it was commissioned by anybody? The first attempt at releasing this information was at the frothing at the mouth humans are bad website Realclimate. When Gavin deleted it, it was then uploaded to Russian servers and then propagated worldwide as people realised the con. It's been spreading like wildfire ever since.


The thread is here somewhere - I cant remember it's title thou!
Will keep looking.

After a very small amount of digging it all became very clear.
The guy who first released these hacked emails was the director of a large oil company up US or Canada way - he then moved over into the coal and minerals industry....

Will keep looking.
 Grin


In the meantime - I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers or other explanations explaining the sudden and rapid rises observed...  there's all this denial going on but there's nothing behind it - there's nothing on the other side of the equals sign. Remember - the climate doesn't just change 'just because' - there is always a cause, either natural or not.
So... if not humans then what (that unanswered question is now well over 5 years old on these XNC board's)?!

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #68 on: December 06, 2009, 04:29:12 pm »

The The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is funded by Exxon Mobile via The International Climate Science Coalition.
They are also strongly hooked up with ACT and their mate Alan Gibbs.... all $$$$$$$$ minded.......


Do you REALLY believe their opinion is unbiased?

 Huh
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2009, 04:35:27 pm »


After a very small amount of digging it all became very clear.
The guy who first released these hacked emails was the director of a large oil company up US or Canada way - he then moved over into the coal and minerals industry....

So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Quote
In the meantime - I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers or other explanations explaining the sudden and rapid rises observed...  there's all this denial going on but there's nothing behind it - there's nothing on the other side of the equals sign. Remember - the climate doesn't just change 'just because' - there is always a cause, either natural or not.
So... if not humans then what (that unanswered question is now well over 5 years old on these XNC board's)?!

The same things that are causing global warming on other planets in this solar system.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2009, 04:47:28 pm »

The The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is funded by Exxon Mobile via The International Climate Science Coalition.

A Greenpeace claim isn't that credible you know. Especially since the only proof they've got is that they were paid to attend a conference that was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. It doesn't demonstrate before or afterwards funding.

Besides which NIWA is funded by the government. An organisation whose main aim in life is tax. Guess what balmy decision the warmist have come up with as the miraculous solution? Oh, right, an air tax.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2009, 04:55:57 pm »

So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Who in the world said anything about Real Climate?!
Sure wasn't me!


But since it has being brought up - here's what Real Climate has to say about it...

The CRU hack
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 20 November 2009

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.

Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.

It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?

Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


Quote
In the meantime - I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers or other explanations explaining the sudden and rapid rises observed...  there's all this denial going on but there's nothing behind it - there's nothing on the other side of the equals sign. Remember - the climate doesn't just change 'just because' - there is always a cause, either natural or not.
So... if not humans then what (that unanswered question is now well over 5 years old on these XNC board's)?!

The same things that are causing global warming on other planets in this solar system.


... which is....?

And where exactly are you referring to?
Still Mars? lol.

Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2009, 05:01:56 pm »

The The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is funded by Exxon Mobile via The International Climate Science Coalition.

A Greenpeace claim isn't that credible you know. Especially since the only proof they've got is that they were paid to attend a conference that was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. It doesn't demonstrate before or afterwards funding.

Besides which NIWA is funded by the government. An organisation whose main aim in life is tax. Guess what balmy decision the warmist have come up with as the miraculous solution? Oh, right, an air tax.


It's not a GreenPeace Claim (or rather - that wasn't what I was referring to anyway).
The International Climate Science Coalition is in bed with The Heartland Institute - and The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is a child of The International Climate Science Coalition. It is well known that The Heartland Institute is largely funded directly by Exxon Mobile and other like minded large money making machines.

Besides which NIWA is funded by the government. An organisation whose main aim in life is tax.

Lol.. a fair enough comparison that!



Of course - it is only recently that NIWA has had any opinion on this matter at all.
The same for NASA and NOAA.
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2009, 05:21:34 pm »

So Realclimate, run by an absolute warmist at heart, is also the director of a large oil company? The things one learns on a chat forum is stunning.

Who in the world said anything about Real Climate?!
Sure wasn't me!

Realclimate is where the data was first uploaded (though Gavin did delete it). You're the one going on about some Oil Baron. The point is, your point is irrelevant.


... which is....?

And where exactly are you referring to?
Still Mars? lol.



Plenty of other planets are warming Dazza. Not just Mars.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2009, 05:25:36 pm »

Of course - it is only recently that NIWA has had any opinion on this matter at all.
The same for NASA and NOAA.

ROTFLMAO!

Salinger has been a warmist for years. I'm trying to cast my mind back to the lecture that was presented at the University of Otago back in 1988. It boiled done to this topic being a source of revenue research funding. I'm pretty sure it was Salinger presenting.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 55   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 14 queries.