New Zealand Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research forced to ditch its manipulated temperature data set
-
NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record [^] Another link to the story: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/nz-climate-crisis-gets-worse[^] GISS, NOAA and CRUT next! :) In the meantime this peer reviewed paper shows that CO2 sensitivity has been cut by 65%. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606276/posts[^]2.4 w/m2s-1 in AR3, 1.7 w/m2s-1 in AR4, and now, 0.6 w/m2s-1, bringing it in line with the the 1`C per doublilng of CO2 predicted by fundamental physics. The BBC has bee told to shape up (again) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8060211/BBC-told-to-ensure-balance-on-climate-change.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record [^] Another link to the story: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/nz-climate-crisis-gets-worse[^] GISS, NOAA and CRUT next! :) In the meantime this peer reviewed paper shows that CO2 sensitivity has been cut by 65%. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606276/posts[^]2.4 w/m2s-1 in AR3, 1.7 w/m2s-1 in AR4, and now, 0.6 w/m2s-1, bringing it in line with the the 1`C per doublilng of CO2 predicted by fundamental physics. The BBC has bee told to shape up (again) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8060211/BBC-told-to-ensure-balance-on-climate-change.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
:zzz: am I the first, am I??
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Hmmmmm. The first you are, yes. Hmmmmmm.
-
NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record [^] Another link to the story: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/nz-climate-crisis-gets-worse[^] GISS, NOAA and CRUT next! :) In the meantime this peer reviewed paper shows that CO2 sensitivity has been cut by 65%. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606276/posts[^]2.4 w/m2s-1 in AR3, 1.7 w/m2s-1 in AR4, and now, 0.6 w/m2s-1, bringing it in line with the the 1`C per doublilng of CO2 predicted by fundamental physics. The BBC has bee told to shape up (again) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8060211/BBC-told-to-ensure-balance-on-climate-change.html[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Wow...once again, you post to a review of an article and claim it to be peer-reviewed. The "paper" (blog post) at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606276/posts[^] is not peer-reviewed. So, you appear to be getting your information from someone who read an article and then decided to use it to prove their point. So, let's post the link to the actual article along with some interesting points! Short-lived uncertainty?[^] "Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants" "We argue that to distinguish between these possibilities, and to provide short-term relief from climate warming, the short-lived compounds that induce warming need to be brought under control within a timescale of a few decades. The resulting changes in atmospheric composition and climate forcing must be accurately measured and modelled for the duration of these emissions reductions. Following this strategy, we will then be able to disentangle the warming and cooling contributions from carbon dioxide and short-lived pollutants, hence placing much tighter constraints on climate sensitivity, and therefore on future climate projections." "Others — such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols — cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide6." "it is clear that anthropogenic emissions of methane and black carbon, and the precursors of ozone and aerosols, have in part controlled climate change over the past century. With a clear understanding of how large these contributions to radiative forcing are, we can constrain climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations." As far as the others, the quadrant piece is actually a pretty good analysis, though I can't see how Barry Brill is an "expert" in any scientific field since Wikipedia lists him as a lawyer. And as far as the content of the first blog, the NIWA didn't formally deny all responsibility for the national temperature record of New Zealand. It admitted that on the NIWA webpage, there is a link called New Zealand Tempera
-
Wow...once again, you post to a review of an article and claim it to be peer-reviewed. The "paper" (blog post) at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2606276/posts[^] is not peer-reviewed. So, you appear to be getting your information from someone who read an article and then decided to use it to prove their point. So, let's post the link to the actual article along with some interesting points! Short-lived uncertainty?[^] "Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants" "We argue that to distinguish between these possibilities, and to provide short-term relief from climate warming, the short-lived compounds that induce warming need to be brought under control within a timescale of a few decades. The resulting changes in atmospheric composition and climate forcing must be accurately measured and modelled for the duration of these emissions reductions. Following this strategy, we will then be able to disentangle the warming and cooling contributions from carbon dioxide and short-lived pollutants, hence placing much tighter constraints on climate sensitivity, and therefore on future climate projections." "Others — such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols — cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide6." "it is clear that anthropogenic emissions of methane and black carbon, and the precursors of ozone and aerosols, have in part controlled climate change over the past century. With a clear understanding of how large these contributions to radiative forcing are, we can constrain climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations." As far as the others, the quadrant piece is actually a pretty good analysis, though I can't see how Barry Brill is an "expert" in any scientific field since Wikipedia lists him as a lawyer. And as far as the content of the first blog, the NIWA didn't formally deny all responsibility for the national temperature record of New Zealand. It admitted that on the NIWA webpage, there is a link called New Zealand Tempera
Thats right, just pick the bits you like! Of course CO2 has contributed to GW, its impossible for it not to, but to what extent, that was the point of that part of my post, a point you utterly fail to address. As for the NIWA you can say what you will, post event, I am sure they have changed theor website post event too to remove any trace of such a claim. ANd yes, the BBC have been told to shape up, allbeit by their own rulling body. A move which will probably acchieve llittle even if long called for.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Thats right, just pick the bits you like! Of course CO2 has contributed to GW, its impossible for it not to, but to what extent, that was the point of that part of my post, a point you utterly fail to address. As for the NIWA you can say what you will, post event, I am sure they have changed theor website post event too to remove any trace of such a claim. ANd yes, the BBC have been told to shape up, allbeit by their own rulling body. A move which will probably acchieve llittle even if long called for.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Thats right, just pick the bits you like!
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that only you could do that. At least I posted the actual article so people could decide on their own. And I didn't take anything out of context. What I quoted was in the article.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Thats right, just pick the bits you like!
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that only you could do that. At least I posted the actual article so people could decide on their own. And I didn't take anything out of context. What I quoted was in the article.
Didn't you know he and CSS hold exclusive rights to that?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Thats right, just pick the bits you like!
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that only you could do that. At least I posted the actual article so people could decide on their own. And I didn't take anything out of context. What I quoted was in the article.
You dont find it at all interesting that the warmig effect of CO2 has been, by this paper, cut by 65%? You dont find this interesting given the reduction already stated by the IPCC from AR3 to AR4? You dont think there is a trend here of reducing CO2s effectiveness? Sorry, I thought this was a 'defining problem' for our generation. I see that you are clearly obsessed with another issue entirely. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You dont find it at all interesting that the warmig effect of CO2 has been, by this paper, cut by 65%? You dont find this interesting given the reduction already stated by the IPCC from AR3 to AR4? You dont think there is a trend here of reducing CO2s effectiveness? Sorry, I thought this was a 'defining problem' for our generation. I see that you are clearly obsessed with another issue entirely. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
the warmig effect of CO2 has been, by this paper, cut by 65%
Wait a minute...this paper cut CO2 warming by being written? Well, hell, let's get them to write a dozen papers and maybe then, we can reduce CO2 warming completely! Here's what I saw in that paper that (from everything I've read that you've written) you disagree with... "Earth's climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the twenty-first century." "It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity" Yes, they say it could equally be caused by a "low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols", but the paper doesn't actually say that that is the case. They say that they don't know. They say that the only way to know is to reduce the short-lived compounds to pre-industrial standards and only then will we be able to really tell what effect CO2 has on the climate. Yes, it says that it augments the radiative forcing of CO2 by 65% (which if you noticed the reference, they actually pulled from an IPCC document). It would appear to me that you are reading into that statistic more than it actually is...especially considering they determined it from an IPCC document.
-
fat_boy wrote:
the warmig effect of CO2 has been, by this paper, cut by 65%
Wait a minute...this paper cut CO2 warming by being written? Well, hell, let's get them to write a dozen papers and maybe then, we can reduce CO2 warming completely! Here's what I saw in that paper that (from everything I've read that you've written) you disagree with... "Earth's climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the twenty-first century." "It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity" Yes, they say it could equally be caused by a "low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols", but the paper doesn't actually say that that is the case. They say that they don't know. They say that the only way to know is to reduce the short-lived compounds to pre-industrial standards and only then will we be able to really tell what effect CO2 has on the climate. Yes, it says that it augments the radiative forcing of CO2 by 65% (which if you noticed the reference, they actually pulled from an IPCC document). It would appear to me that you are reading into that statistic more than it actually is...especially considering they determined it from an IPCC document.
"Earth's climate can only be stabilized by bringing carbon dioxide emissions under control in the twenty-first century." Stock discalimer to guarantee publication. Come on, even you know this surely?
William Winner wrote:
"It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity"
And now the bad news...
William Winner wrote:
Wait a minute...this paper cut CO2 warming by being written? Well, hell, let's get them to write a dozen papers and maybe then, we can reduce CO2 warming completely!
Your peurile babylike attempt at ridicule and humour, despite me already pointing out that AR3 to AR4 saw a cut in CO2 forcing form 2.4 to 1.7, a fact you choolse not to ridicule.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription