| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZB00N
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: Use less power |
 |
|
"Arumugham" <n.arumugham@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3c55d9e-4096-425d-aff8-ac427369ec07@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Try to cook more than one item simultaneously in oven.
Use wide bottomed vessel while cooking using the top of the electric
range.
Microwave ovens consume less energy.
Use cold washes in your washing machine and dry clothes outside of
washing machine as far as possible.
Keep light fixtures clean to get optimum light.
Visit
http://severaltips.blogspot.com/2008/07/save-electricity-save-energy-power.html
[/quote]
Don>t forget to switch off your computer AND KEEP IT SWITCHED OFF!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some
intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming
policy." Roger A. Pielke, Professor, Environmental Studies, University
of Colorado |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming Blog 2008 post # 151 |
|
|
"arclein" <arclein@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:672c3dc0-e624-46e4-b1fb-cbef6f4f6caf@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]I maintain a blog on global warming,
--[/quote]
Oh bad luck!
The world is cooling don>t you know?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth>s temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: Re: How odd that NO.ZOB missed this one |
|
|
On Jul 29, 5:21 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
[quote]"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98ed74a3-0697-48c8-84c1-0666af92f3db@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 4:09 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b36a6440-2448-48c9-a613-7f692f6ef84e@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 5:32 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:12 pm, Poetic Justice
@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
[...]
I do chastise people for accepting revealed religion without one
shred
of evidence for its possible truth.
But you support people who accept AGW without one shred of
evidence.
I don>t know of any such person. If I did I would supply them with
the
references they need to locate the abundant evidence out there.
Perhaps you>re proposing here that evidence is only evidence if
there
is absolutely no possibility of counter propositions to its content?
Funny how that works.
Or numbers like 50,000 species extinctions each and every year for
which
there is not one shred of evidence, but should be.
Only because you have failed to understand the basis for such a
statement. Or you have understood, but cannot accept this way of
dealing with prediction.
Well...laugh at them is more in my
line. And I feel sorry for the generations of children who are
then
abused by these same dupes, forced to accept the same idiotic
gobshite, growing up unable to see and reason for themselves,
believing the nonsense that has been stuffed into their heads is
reality.
The victims of the church are abused, and as terrible as that is,
the victims of AGW are starving. We (are told to believe) we need
biofuels, they seem to think they need food. Which do you think
best John?
Food, of course. Even if most of it goes down the throats of child
abusers aka. proselytising parents. Biofuels from cropland is
ridiculous.
Not only ridiculous, but constructively, a furphy, because in the only
case where this applies (corn to ethanol), the connection between this
and the price or availability of any food stuff is at best tenuous.
Much of the corn raised in the US is used for convenience foods rather
than food per se, so its contribution to nutrition is zero. A
substantial portion of corn ethanol comes from non-edible portions of
the corn.
Moreover, corn is used because sugar is protected. Were sugar not
protected, it would be used. Sugar is not a staple food and
contributes nothing to nutrition -- indeed, it subtracts from it.
Rich does like dredging out this old canard though ... He>d be better
off eating it ;-)
**********************
ROTFLMAO
If others are to believe you, you do a lot of rolling on the floor and
losing your arse. Little wonder that you so regularly fix it back onto
the wrong end.
NOT A CANARD FRAN BABY!!
As if you>d know one from a goose ...
You conveniently left out the use of scarce, available agricultural
land
for the growing of these insidious crops!!!
Which insidious crops?
Sugar? Tea? Coffee? Cocaine? Tobacco?
**************
Any of the above, if used for biofuels whilst food prices soar and
humans go hungry.
[/quote]
So you>re for stopping these crops from being planted "whilst food
prices soar and
humans go hungry"?
Yes or no?
Fran |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: Re: How odd that NO.ZOB missed this one |
|
|
On Jul 29, 5:28 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
[quote]"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5966470e-909f-4cda-aafc-2d58e7960a4f@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 5:21 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98ed74a3-0697-48c8-84c1-0666af92f3db@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
On Jul 29, 4:09 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b36a6440-2448-48c9-a613-7f692f6ef84e@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
On Jul 29, 5:32 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:12 pm, Poetic Justice
@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
[...]
I do chastise people for accepting revealed religion without
one
shred
of evidence for its possible truth.
But you support people who accept AGW without one shred of
evidence.
I don>t know of any such person. If I did I would supply them
with
the
references they need to locate the abundant evidence out there.
Perhaps you>re proposing here that evidence is only evidence if
there
is absolutely no possibility of counter propositions to its
content?
Funny how that works.
Or numbers like 50,000 species extinctions each and every year
for
which
there is not one shred of evidence, but should be.
Only because you have failed to understand the basis for such a
statement. Or you have understood, but cannot accept this way of
dealing with prediction.
Well...laugh at them is more in my
line. And I feel sorry for the generations of children who
are
then
abused by these same dupes, forced to accept the same idiotic
gobshite, growing up unable to see and reason for themselves,
believing the nonsense that has been stuffed into their heads
is
reality.
The victims of the church are abused, and as terrible as that
is,
the victims of AGW are starving. We (are told to believe) we
need
biofuels, they seem to think they need food. Which do you think
best John?
Food, of course. Even if most of it goes down the throats of
child
abusers aka. proselytising parents. Biofuels from cropland is
ridiculous.
Not only ridiculous, but constructively, a furphy, because in the
only
case where this applies (corn to ethanol), the connection between
this
and the price or availability of any food stuff is at best tenuous.
Much of the corn raised in the US is used for convenience foods
rather
than food per se, so its contribution to nutrition is zero. A
substantial portion of corn ethanol comes from non-edible portions
of
the corn.
Moreover, corn is used because sugar is protected. Were sugar not
protected, it would be used. Sugar is not a staple food and
contributes nothing to nutrition -- indeed, it subtracts from it.
Rich does like dredging out this old canard though ... He>d be
better
off eating it ;-)
**********************
ROTFLMAO
If others are to believe you, you do a lot of rolling on the floor
and
losing your arse. Little wonder that you so regularly fix it back
onto
the wrong end.
NOT A CANARD FRAN BABY!!
As if you>d know one from a goose ...
You conveniently left out the use of scarce, available agricultural
land
for the growing of these insidious crops!!!
Which insidious crops?
Sugar? Tea? Coffee? Cocaine? Tobacco?
**************
Any of the above, if used for biofuels whilst food prices soar and
humans go hungry.
So you>re for stopping these crops from being planted "whilst food
prices soar and
humans go hungry"?
Yes or no?
Fran
Yes and no!
If grown for biofuels YES, if grown for food NO!
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of
the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the
developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean
temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future
generations." Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member
of the National Academy of Sciences- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
HEY BOZO, GO f ck BUSH>S ASS SOME MORE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: Re: How odd that NO.ZOB missed this one |
|
|
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5966470e-909f-4cda-aafc-2d58e7960a4f@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 29, 5:21 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98ed74a3-0697-48c8-84c1-0666af92f3db@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 4:09 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b36a6440-2448-48c9-a613-7f692f6ef84e@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 5:32 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:12 pm, Poetic Justice
@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
[...]
I do chastise people for accepting revealed religion without
one
shred
of evidence for its possible truth.
But you support people who accept AGW without one shred of
evidence.
I don>t know of any such person. If I did I would supply them
with
the
references they need to locate the abundant evidence out there.
Perhaps you>re proposing here that evidence is only evidence if
there
is absolutely no possibility of counter propositions to its
content?
Funny how that works.
Or numbers like 50,000 species extinctions each and every year
for
which
there is not one shred of evidence, but should be.
Only because you have failed to understand the basis for such a
statement. Or you have understood, but cannot accept this way of
dealing with prediction.
Well...laugh at them is more in my
line. And I feel sorry for the generations of children who
are
then
abused by these same dupes, forced to accept the same idiotic
gobshite, growing up unable to see and reason for themselves,
believing the nonsense that has been stuffed into their heads
is
reality.
The victims of the church are abused, and as terrible as that
is,
the victims of AGW are starving. We (are told to believe) we
need
biofuels, they seem to think they need food. Which do you think
best John?
Food, of course. Even if most of it goes down the throats of
child
abusers aka. proselytising parents. Biofuels from cropland is
ridiculous.
Not only ridiculous, but constructively, a furphy, because in the
only
case where this applies (corn to ethanol), the connection between
this
and the price or availability of any food stuff is at best tenuous.
Much of the corn raised in the US is used for convenience foods
rather
than food per se, so its contribution to nutrition is zero. A
substantial portion of corn ethanol comes from non-edible portions
of
the corn.
Moreover, corn is used because sugar is protected. Were sugar not
protected, it would be used. Sugar is not a staple food and
contributes nothing to nutrition -- indeed, it subtracts from it.
Rich does like dredging out this old canard though ... He>d be
better
off eating it ;-)
**********************
ROTFLMAO
If others are to believe you, you do a lot of rolling on the floor
and
losing your arse. Little wonder that you so regularly fix it back
onto
the wrong end.
NOT A CANARD FRAN BABY!!
As if you>d know one from a goose ...
You conveniently left out the use of scarce, available agricultural
land
for the growing of these insidious crops!!!
Which insidious crops?
Sugar? Tea? Coffee? Cocaine? Tobacco?
**************
Any of the above, if used for biofuels whilst food prices soar and
humans go hungry.
So you>re for stopping these crops from being planted "whilst food
prices soar and
humans go hungry"?
Yes or no?
Fran
[/quote]
Yes and no!
If grown for biofuels YES, if grown for food NO!
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of
the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the
developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean
temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future
generations." Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member
of the National Academy of Sciences |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: Re: Quote of the Week |
|
|
"James" <kingkongg@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:488f4973$0$19682$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com...
[quote]
"As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the
ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking the coastlines in the Atlantic, and
bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya." Barack Obama from
his Berlin speech, July 24, 2008.
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO
No proof.
No evidence.
IOW total and utter misinformed hysteria!
And this idiot wants to be president?????
Oh my gawd.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"IPCC staff is working feverishly on a theory that supports global
cooling as proof of global warming. Stay tuned." Addison Gardner |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: misleading statements by the IPCC |
|
|
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_House@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:53Ujk.411$Wm.317@read2.cgocable.net...
[quote]
[/quote]
IPCC Guilty Of Blatant Lies And Exaggeration
July 30, 2008
QUOTE: as an external reviewer, I felt time and time
again that there were areas where the chapter authors highlighted
adverse impact of
GW (Global Warming) on human societies, while downplaying possible
beneficial
impacts.
QUOTE: Although an exceptional weather event, the 2003 European
heat wave was by no means unprecedented and was a result of a persistent
upper-level ridge of high pressure over the Continent (see AMS Bulletin,
June 2004). Linking the 2003 heat wave in Europe to human activity is
unconvincing and without any merit. Such heat waves have occurred in the
past in various parts of the earth and have been triggered by various
reasons, most commonly due to an anomalous but not uncommon
atmospheric flow pattern
QUOTE: Glacier retreat and advances are part of natural variability and
not a direct consequence of GW as IPCC authors seem to imply in their
assessment.
QUOTE: The issue of glacier retreat and advance is
much more complex than what IPCC authors have presented in their
simplistic
treatment using the GW hypothesis.
IPCC external reviewer Dr Madhav Khandekar says the UN body has
exaggerated the costs of global warming:
Using unpublished work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs
while ignoring peer reviewed studies which document otherwise is an
unacceptable and unscientific practice.
The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion
of the reality of climate change and its future impact.
The earth>s climate has changed and is changing continuously, a fact
accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the present debate.
Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies?
Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been
overlooked?
Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts?
We do not have all the answers yet.
There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on
world-wide human societies.
The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically
re-assessed.
The full paper, kindly sent to me by Dr Khandekar, a former research
scientist with Environment Canada who holds a PhD in meteorology and has
worked in the fields of climatology, is below:
MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
Reprinted from ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 19 No. 5 2008
HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACT
OF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?
by Madhav L Khandekar Environmental Consultant Unionville Ontario CANADA
1. INTRODUCTION
Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human
societies?
Yes, Certainly!
Let me explain:
While reviewing the IPCC WGII (Working Group
II) Chapter "Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and
managed
systems" (Chpt.1, WGII IPCC, 2007) as an external reviewer, I felt time
and time
again that there were areas where the chapter authors highlighted
adverse impact of
GW (Global Warming) on human societies, while downplaying possible
beneficial
impacts.
The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected
adverse
impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned
these
projections. Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII,
there were many
instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while
possible
beneficial impacts were totally ignored.
Further, IPCC authors while assessing
observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those
changes which
support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed
changes which
did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change.
Such cherrypicking
of observed climate change to bolster claims of human-caused GW and
climate change is disingenuous and does not help understand the real
cause of how and
why the earth>s climate has changed in historical and geological times.
A detailed reading of the Chapter left me with an impression that the
deleterious
impact of GW on human societies was so imminent and overwhelming that
unless
something is done right away (to curb the warming), human societies
world over are
about to perish!
The following section provides selected examples (from Ch 1 WGII) of
exaggerated claims made by the IPCC authors:
713
1Dr Madhav L Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment
Canada and is presently on the editorial board of the Journal Natural
Hazards ( Kluwer, Netherlands). Khandekar has been in the fields of
weather & climate for over fifty years and has published over 120
papers, reports, book reviews etc. While at Environment Canada,
Khandekar wrote a monograph on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling
which
has been published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar is an External
Reviewer for the IPCC 2007
Climate Change Documents.
Address for correspondence: 52 Montrose Crescent, Unionville, Ontario,
Canada, L3R 7Z5: mkhandekar@rogers.com
714 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008
2. SELECTED EXAMPLES
1. Executive Summary: Here the GW impacts are listed under several
categories, in each a deleterious impact is prominently spelled out.
Examples:
increasing droughts and flash floods, widespread coastal erosion,
cryospheric
changes and resulting glacial floods, increased run-off in snow &
glacial
basins, lower crop yields due to warming with an example for the Sahel
region
(Africa) due to reduction in decadal scale precipitation, impact on
human
health (cholera etc) related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation incidences,
increased vector-borne diseases and some water-borne diseases,
increasing
global catastrophes and significant increases in the values of exposure
at risk.
2. Observed Changes in systems & Sectors: Here examples given are:
cryospheric reduction world-wide and rapid glacier melts in South
America,
escalating sea-level rise, the European heat wave of summer 2003,
increase in
world-wide drought areas and possibly in flood areas as well, changes in
coastal processes due to escalating sea-level rise.
3. Terrestrial & Biological Systems: changes in phenology (seasonal
activities
of animals and plants) and their northward migration in Europe.
4. Agriculture & Forestry: The overall discussion emphasizes reduction
in
crops and yields due to warming with specific example of Sahel region;
increased risk of forest fire activity with increasing temperature.
5. Human Health: Here an increased possibility of outbreak of malaria
with
examples from East Africa ( Kenya) and South Asia, water-borne disease
like
cholera in South Asia and other ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation)
related
health impacts in Asia are highlighted.
6. Disasters & Hazards: A general theme here is " increase in
catastrophic
events like floods, droughts, heat waves etc and related economic losses
worldwide which are all directly related to warming of the earth>s
surface
temperature'. As supporting evidence, a couple of unpublished documents
are
cited, while several published studies refuting such increases are
ignored.
3. A REALITY CHECK WITH OBSERVATIONS AND PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES
It is imperative to analyze various claims made above in the context of
the reality of
climate as it continues to evolve in different regions of the earth. It
is also important
to carefully assess all available literature and observed data to
determine if the present
climate does indeed follow the "Global Warming" path as projected by the
IPCC
scientists and the climate model projections.
The Executive Summary for Chapter 1 uses terms like "increase in floods,
flash
floods etc" which are very general in nature and do not appear to have
been thoroughly
analyzed to determine if there is indeed a 'human influence' in such
events. Several
peer-reviewed studies published in recent literature document an
increase in extreme
weather (EW) however, a close analysis reveals that such 'increase' is
more a
perception than reality. In a report prepared for the Government of
Alberta in western
Canada (Khandekar 2002), I have examined typical EW events like
thunderstorms,
tornadoes, floods, droughts, heat waves for the Canadian Prairie
provinces and
concluded that none of the EW events showed any increase in recent
years. I have also
examined such EW events elsewhere (Khandekar et al, 2005) and the
general
conclusion was that these events did not show any systematic
increase/decrease in
recent years. As synthesized by Khandekar et al (2005) "the link between
GW & EW
is more a perception than reality, this perception being fostered as a
result of increased
awareness and media attention to such weather events". Additional
discussion on EW
will be presented in a later section.
A reality check for some of the items listed earlier is presented below:
1. Cryospheric Reduction: Glacier retreat and advances are part of
natural
variability and not a direct consequence of GW as IPCC authors seem to
imply
in their assessment. The authors have avoided referring to many studies
readily
available in peer-reviewed literature while emphasizing studies which
purportedly show 'rapid' shrinking of world-wide glaciers and associated
sealevel
rise. One of the most talked about examples is the 'vanishing ice cap on
Mt Kilimanjaro' in equatorial Africa. This melting has been going on for
well
over a hundred years now as documented in a paper by Kaser et al (2004).
The
paper by Kaser et al discounts any GW impact and suggests a drastic drop
in
atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing
drier
climate as possible reasons for the declining ice cap. Ironically
however, the
authors of Ch1 did not refer to this important paper as well as several
other
papers on the glaciers in the Swiss Alps and elsewhere (e.g., Hormes et
al
2001, 2006). A few other papers suggest glacier shrinking to solar
variability
during the Holocene in particular. The issue of glacier retreat and
advance is
much more complex than what IPCC authors have presented in their
simplistic
treatment using the GW hypothesis.
.. The European summer 2003 heat wave: The heat wave in Europe during
June-July of 2003 was an exceptional event and received wide publicity
because of a large number of fatalities due to dehydration and heat
stress
which affected several thousand elderly people in France and elsewhere
in
Western Europe. Although an exceptional weather event, the 2003 European
heat wave was by no means unprecedented and was a result of a persistent
upper-level ridge of high pressure over the Continent (see AMS Bulletin,
June 2004). Linking the 2003 heat wave in Europe to human activity is
unconvincing and without any merit. Such heat waves have occurred in the
past in various parts of the earth and have been triggered by various
reasons, most commonly due to an anomalous but not uncommon
atmospheric flow pattern.
What is of interest here is that just six months
earlier, the winter months of December 2002 and January 2003 were
unusually cold in many parts of North America, Europe and this unusually
cold winter was felt even in the tropical latitudes of Vietnam and
Bangladesh where several hundred people died of long exposure to
significantly below normal temperatures. The winter season of 2002/03
over
Northern Hemisphere was much more wide-spread globally than the
Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human
Societies? 715
European heat wave of summer 2003. The IPCC authors highlighted the
European heat wave as an example of human activity induced EW event,
but completely ignored the unusually cold winter season of 2002/03. Also
the summer (June/July/August) of 2004 was one of the coldest over most
of
North America. These and many other recent climate anomalies of cold as
well as warm season are most certainly due to natural climate
variability
and are in no way associated with human activity.
3. Changes in phenology: Most studies cited in this area are almost
exclusively for Europe where considerable research efforts have
documented
changes in bird and vegetation migration in the last few years. However
a
significant lack of such studies from other regions of the world makes
it
difficult to draw any conclusion about climate change link to this
'northward' migration. The IPCC authors do not provide any explanation
for
lack of studies in other regions while concluding climate change impact
on
(global-scale) phenology.
4. Impact on Agriculture: The IPCC authors imply a deleterious impact of
GW
warming on agriculture by providing an example of Sahel region where
recurring droughts have reduced peanut crop yield in recent years. The
IPCC
authors completely ignore increased agriculture yields in other grain
producing regions (India, Canada, USA, Australia) where the mean
temperature has warmed by about 1C in the last fifty years, however
grain
yields have not declined at all. In India, improved farming and
irrigation
technology has resulted in four to five fold increases in rice and wheat
yield
since 1950 (see Selvaraju 2003). Similar increase in grain yield has
been
recorded in other grain producing countries which IPCC authors have
completely ignored. The IPCC authors also ignore the beneficial impacts
of
increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide on world-wide forestry.
Recent
satellite data show convincingly that the world forests have been
enriched due
to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and this has helped
increase the
"greening" of the earth>s surface.
5. Disasters & Hazards: The IPCC continues with its theme of "increased
catastrophes world-wide leading to increased economic losses". The
evidence
for increased economic losses is presented using an obscure unpublished
study
(Miller et al 2006) while several peer-reviewed studies, notably by the
highly
respected US climatologist Stanley Changnon are completely ignored.
Changnon and his associates have amply documented that the Shifting
Economic Impacts from Weather Extremes is a Result of Societal Change,
Not
Global Warming (Chagnon 2003, Chagnon et al 2001). Using unpublished
work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs while ignoring
peerreviewed
studies which document otherwise is an unacceptable and
unscientific practice.
6. Human Health: The IPCC raises the specter of malaria becoming more
prevalent in a warmer future climate. The IPCC also refers to possible
increase
in cholera and other ENSO related health impacts in south Asia, in
particular.
Several studies by Dr Paul Reiter, an expert epidemiologist at the
Pasteur
Institute in Paris (e.g., Reiter 2001) demonstrate that the
mosquito-borne
diseases like malaria and dengue fever were prevalent in Europe and
elsewhere
even during the Little Ice Age.
Reiter further demonstrates that the control of
malaria and dengue is determined by human activity, ecology and vector
biology and there is no simple relationship to changing climate or to
GW.
The IPCC reference to cholera and other ENSO related health impacts in
south
Asia is a normal occurrence during the Asian Monsoon season and has no
relation to GW or climate change.
4. EXTREME WEATHER, SEA-LEVEL RISE AND OTHER ISSUES
Extreme Weather (EW) and Sea-level Rise (SLR) are two of the most
contentious
issues in the present debate on GW impact. The IPCC Documents and
climate
models project increasing EW events and an escalating SLR as the earth>s
mean
temperature rises in future.
As mentioned earlier, the EW/GW link is more a
perception than reality, primarily due to increased media attention.
Many EW events
of the past have remained unnoticed and unreported due to lack of
observing
technology and/or due to lack of interest in these events at the time.
The recent
media hype about EW events has provided a new spin to these events as
the
harbinger of future climate!
Ironically, some of the winter season EW events are also being linked
with GW impact which neither the IPCC nor the climate models project as
possible GW impact.
The recent statement on EW put out by the WMO
(World Meteorological Organization, Geneva) includes some winter weather
extremes of the Southern Hemisphere (SH). Two noteworthy winter weather
extremes from the SH this year are:
1. several centimeters of snow in Buenos Aires
(Argentina) on July 7, 2007, followed by a shivering temperature
of -22C! The last
time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918!
2. On 27 June 2007, a cold front moved across South Africa bringing the
country>s first significant snowfall since 1981 (25 cm in parts of the
country). Many other winter weather extremes have been reported in
recent years (see Khandekar 2003, 2004). Interestingly, none of the
climate models offer any explanation for the increasing frequency of
winter weather extremes in recent years.
The SLR and its estimate for the next one hundred years has been a
subject of
several dozen studies in recent years. Many of these studies assume
significant melting
of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves (principally Greenland and West
Antarctic ice
sheets) during the next 50 to 100 years and this melt-down could produce
an escalated
SLR with values as high as 1 to 2 meters (or more) over the next 100
years.
There are several uncertainties in these estimates and the possibility
of significant melt-down of Arctic & Antarctic Ice Sheets remains far
from certain. Other recent papers now seem to suggest that the SLR due
to melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps (outside of
Arctic & Antarctic) will only be about 5 cm over next 100 years, just
half the earlier
estimate. Another recent paper (Holgate 2007) documents that the SLR
during the first
half of the 20th century was higher than the latter half of the century,
thus discounting
any suggestion about 'escalating SLR at present'.
For many countries in the higher latitudes of both the Hemispheres, the
present
climate change (milder winters, reduced house-heating cost, longer
agricultural
season) can be beneficial in general.
The IPCC scientists have completely missed this aspect of climate
change.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion
of the reality
of climate change and its future impact. The earth>s climate has changed
and is
changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on
both sides of the
present debate.
Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies?
Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been
overlooked?
Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts?
We do not have all the answers yet.
There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on
world-wide
human societies.
The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically
re-assessed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Benny Peiser for
encouraging me to
prepare this article.
REFERENCES
AMS Bulletin 2004: Annual Climate Review 2003, p. S1-S72, Bulletin
American
Meteorological Society June 2003.
Changnon S A et al 2000: Trends in socio-economic impacts related to
weather & climate
extremes in the USA. Bulletin, American Meteorological Society, 81,
437-442.
Changnon S A 2003: Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in
the United States: A result of societal change, not global warming.
Natural Hazards 29, June 2003, 273-290.
Holgate S J 2007: On the decadal rates of sea level change during the
twentieth century.
Geophysical Research Letters, 34 L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
Hormes A. et al 2001: The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight
Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the central Swiss Alps. The
Holocene, 11, 255-265.
Holmes A. et al 2006: A geochronological approach to understanding the
role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the
Swiss Alps. Geogra. Ann. 88A(4),
281-294(Swedish Society for Anthropology & Geography).
Khandekar M L 2002: Trends and changes in extreme weather events: An
assessment with a focus on Alberta and Canadian Prairies. Report
prepared for Alberta Environment (Canada), October 2002, ISBN
0-7785-2428-0, p.56.
Khandekar M L 2003: Comments on WMO statement on extreme weather events.
EOS, V 84, No. 41, 14 October 2003( FORUM).
Khandekar M L 2004: Are climate model projections reliable enough for
climate policy? Energy & Environment 15 521-525.
Khandekar M L et al 2005: The global warming debate: A review of the
state of science. Pure & Applied Geophysics 162 1557-1586.
Miller S et al 2006: Weather related catastrophe loss trends and the
impact of climate change.
To be published ( to be circulated prior to publication) [comment: This
is all the info available on this study. I find it incredible that the
IPCC authors would use this obscure unpublished study
718 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008
to bolster claims of increased economic losses while ignoring other
available studies which refute such claim].
Reiter Paul 2001: Climate change and mosquito-borne disease.
Environmental Health
Perspectives, 109, 141-161.
Selvaraju R 2003: Impact of El Nino-Southern Oscillation on Indian
food-grain production. Int>l J of Climatology 23 187-206.
Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human
Societies? 719
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/exaggerators_ipcc_accused_by_its_own/
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth>s temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: How odd that NO.ZOB missed this one |
|
|
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9fd34f2-aca0-438e-87f4-aa19cb90d358@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 10:28 am, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
[quote]"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5966470e-909f-4cda-aafc-2d58e7960a4f@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 5:21 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98ed74a3-0697-48c8-84c1-0666af92f3db@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 4:09 pm, "ZB00N" <ZB...@z00z00.com> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b36a6440-2448-48c9-a613-7f692f6ef84e@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 5:32 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:12 pm, Poetic Justice
@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
[...]
I do chastise people for accepting revealed religion
without
one
shred
of evidence for its possible truth.
But you support people who accept AGW without one shred of
evidence.
I don>t know of any such person. If I did I would supply them
with
the
references they need to locate the abundant evidence out there.
Perhaps you>re proposing here that evidence is only evidence if
there
is absolutely no possibility of counter propositions to its
content?
Funny how that works.
Or numbers like 50,000 species extinctions each and every
year
for
which
there is not one shred of evidence, but should be.
Only because you have failed to understand the basis for such a
statement. Or you have understood, but cannot accept this way
of
dealing with prediction.
Well...laugh at them is more in my
line. And I feel sorry for the generations of children who
are
then
abused by these same dupes, forced to accept the same
idiotic
gobshite, growing up unable to see and reason for
themselves,
believing the nonsense that has been stuffed into their
heads
is
reality.
The victims of the church are abused, and as terrible as that
is,
the victims of AGW are starving. We (are told to believe) we
need
biofuels, they seem to think they need food. Which do you
think
best John?
Food, of course. Even if most of it goes down the throats of
child
abusers aka. proselytising parents. Biofuels from cropland is
ridiculous.
Not only ridiculous, but constructively, a furphy, because in the
only
case where this applies (corn to ethanol), the connection between
this
and the price or availability of any food stuff is at best
tenuous.
Much of the corn raised in the US is used for convenience foods
rather
than food per se, so its contribution to nutrition is zero. A
substantial portion of corn ethanol comes from non-edible
portions
of
the corn.
Moreover, corn is used because sugar is protected. Were sugar not
protected, it would be used. Sugar is not a staple food and
contributes nothing to nutrition -- indeed, it subtracts from it.
Rich does like dredging out this old canard though ... He>d be
better
off eating it ;-)
**********************
ROTFLMAO
If others are to believe you, you do a lot of rolling on the floor
and
losing your arse. Little wonder that you so regularly fix it back
onto
the wrong end.
NOT A CANARD FRAN BABY!!
As if you>d know one from a goose ...
You conveniently left out the use of scarce, available
agricultural
land
for the growing of these insidious crops!!!
Which insidious crops?
Sugar? Tea? Coffee? Cocaine? Tobacco?
**************
Any of the above, if used for biofuels whilst food prices soar and
humans go hungry.
So you>re for stopping these crops from being planted "whilst food
prices soar and
humans go hungry"?
Yes or no?
Fran
Yes and no!
If grown for biofuels YES, if grown for food NO!
[/quote]
Ok ... so let me get this quite clear.
So long as "prices soar" and "humans go hungry" you>re for the
regulation of agricultural land by the state so as to exclude biofuels
but to permit all other usages?
Fran
*****************
OK, I>ll simplify ...
It is immoral to set aside good agricultural land for biofuels,
especially when this is done in the name of an unproven "climate
crisis",
when the direct consequences are food shortages and soaring food prices,
as we have now!!!!
Methinks this situation is part of the AGW socialist agenda to severely
reduce the world>s population!
Shades of that other crackpot Paul Ehrlich!!!
Did you get that??
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the
suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our
schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -
that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As
'the
ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average
citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance.
.... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the
position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ...
Marcel Leroux
It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is
contradicted by the facts/measurements/observations and should
therefore be abandoned and be substituted by a hypothesis which
better matches the facts.
- Hans Labohm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Yes, the World is NOT Warming. |
|
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1a4436ca-7ac1-4f89-aed5-f6bf6309d0e1@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 29, 2:11 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]http://www.climatechangefraud.com/images/stories/graphs.jpg
Despite Dunderbar>s lies, the global mean surface temperatures[/quote]
continue to rise.
That the surface of the Earth has warmed over the last several
decades is a fact supported by many independent sources . . .
*******************
Methinks this is a case of desperation in the face of global cooling.
Sorry, but the world has COOLED according to the Hadley graph attached.
Only Fudgin' Hansen>s "adjusted" data shows warming, but we know why,
don>t we comrade?
BTW What>s in the water you>re drinking there comrade?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth>s temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Wong>s climate paper clouded with mistakes |
|
|
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
news:w_qdnZlsLb2ewhLVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[quote]More_Flaps wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:44 am, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
Fifth, sixth and seventh, the statement that human carbon dioxide
emissions will cause "more droughts, rising sea levels and more
extreme weather" is unbridled nonsense.
Such confident predictions are derived from unvalidated,
unsuccessful computer models that even their proponents agree
cannot predict the future.
Lie #8
Can>t predict the future a lie?
Can>t read the entire sentence? lol
Such confident predictions are derived from unvalidated,
unsuccessful computer models
= a ridiculous lie.
[/quote]
WRONG REXIE BABY!!!
Its Now Proven, Models Are Hopeless At Predicting Anything
Far from model predictions. As for the CSIRO>s.
July 30 2008
QUOTE: The more important thing to say, however, is that whenever you
hear the word "modelling", your bulldust detector should go into
overdrive.
QUOTE: To me, demanding to see modelling is akin to crying, "con me,
baby, con me". Blind me with science.
QUOTE: The truth is that modelling gives the unwary a false sense of
certainty about the future. That>s particularly true of the way
politicians use modelling, quoting cut-down versions of the results as
though they>ve been written on tablets of stone by the hand of God,
without ever mentioning the reams of qualifications that go with them.
Steve McIntyre notes a new paper which tests 18 years of predictions by
global warming models against real-world rainfall and temperature.
Result?
The models are hopeless at predicting anything. From the abstract
(Koutsoyiannis et al):
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained
through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other
disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we
compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation
observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from
around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a
climatic (30-year) scale.
Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common
argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is
unsupported.
Speaking of dud predictions by local models, Ian Castles, former head of
the Australian Bureau of Statistics, checks the Bureau of Meteorology
and CSIRO>s controversial report on future droughts, that the Rudd
Government used this month to whip up panic:
The key finding of the report, as presented in the opening words of
(Primary Industry Minister Tony) Burke>s media release of 6 July, was
that 'Australia could experience drought twice as often and the events
will be twice as severe within 20 to 30 years.' ...
What the Minister didn>t mention was that the report hadn>t been
reviewed by outsiders....
As it happens, a peer-reviewed study of the prospective incidence of
droughts in Australia HAS just been published. The paper 'Comparison of
suitable drought indices for climate change impacts assessment over
Australia towards resource management' appears in the current (August
2008) edition of the International Journal of Climatology - the journal
of the UK Royal Meteorological Society. It is authored by four CSIRO
scientists, three of whom were also authors of the BoM/CSIRO report
(Freddie Mpelasoka, Kevin Hennessy and Bryson Bates) and two of whom
were Coordinating Lead Authors of the IPCC>s 2007 Assessment Report
(Kevin Hennessy and Roger Jones).
In short, the simulations from the two models (of the CSIRO and the
Canadian Climate Centre) suggest that in the medium-term (20-30 years)
there will be a tendency towards a small increase in drought frequency
in most of Australia, but with decreases in drought frequency in some
areas. Although the peer-reviewed study comes from several of the same
scientists, it gives no support to the cries of alarm and disaster which
have accompanied the release of the BoM/CSIRO report.
The impression given by the peer-reviewed paper is vastly different from
that given in the report to the Australian Government.
Castles also finds that a CSIRO paper last year predicted only "up to
20% more droughts over most of Australia by 2030", when its latest
report has the Rudd Government claiming "Australia could experience
droughts twice as often [i.e., 100% more frequently] within 20 to 30
years."
Something is suss.
POSTSCRIPT:
One of the models tested in the National Technical University of Athens
study above was actually the Canadian Climate Centre one that the CSIRO
paper relied upon - and one of the data stations used to check the
predictions was at Alice Springs. So the study>s conclusion is
particularly interesting:
This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not
credible.
UPDATE
Reader Maurie cites another reference on the danger of relying on models
sold be people with something to gain:
UPDATE 2
Ross Gittins, global warming true believer, suddenly doubts models,
after all:
The more important thing to say, however, is that whenever you hear the
word "modelling", your bulldust detector should go into overdrive.
To me, demanding to see modelling is akin to crying, "con me, baby, con
me". Blind me with science.
Don>t forget the sterling efforts of those modellers who predicted how
many motorists would use the Cross City and Lane Cove tunnels..
The truth is that modelling gives the unwary a false sense of certainty
about the future. That>s particularly true of the way politicians use
modelling, quoting cut-down versions of the results as though they>ve
been written on tablets of stone by the hand of God, without ever
mentioning the reams of qualifications that go with them.
Before you take much notice of any modelling results, you have to know
all about the many hidden assumptions that have been made to produce
them, and which particular variables are doing most to drive them...
Pardon? Ross, is that you - global warming sceptic, doubting at last the
models that predict a terrible warming ... that in fact hasn>t occured
for years?
Wait.
Clarification:
the models Gittins is mocking here are the ones the Liberals want to see
from Treasury to check if Kevin Rudd>s emissions trading scheme will
actually make a blind bit of difference to anything but your wallets. As
for the climate models, Gittins remains a true believer. None of the
above applies to them, of course.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/far_from_model_predictions_as_for_the_csiros/
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"IPCC staff is working feverishly on a theory that supports global
cooling as proof of global warming. Stay tuned." Addison Gardner |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Wong>s climate paper clouded with mistakes |
|
|
"More_Flaps" <Moreflaps@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae27887-5310-4d27-a572-695e0ece3651@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 5:44 am, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
[quote]
Fifth, sixth and seventh, the statement that human carbon dioxide
emissions will cause "more droughts, rising sea levels and more
extreme weather" is unbridled nonsense.
Such confident predictions are derived from unvalidated,
unsuccessful
computer models that even their proponents agree cannot predict the
future.
Lie #8
Can>t predict the future a lie?[/quote]
***************
Definitely not a lie.
Models are absolutely hopeless!!!
Its Now Proven, Models Are Hopeless At Predicting Anything
Far from model predictions.
As for the CSIRO>s.
July 30 2008
QUOTE: The more important thing to say, however, is that whenever you
hear the word "modelling", your bulldust detector should go into
overdrive.
QUOTE: To me, demanding to see modelling is akin to crying, "con me,
baby, con me". Blind me with science.
QUOTE: The truth is that modelling gives the unwary a false sense of
certainty about the future. That>s particularly true of the way
politicians use modelling, quoting cut-down versions of the results as
though they>ve been written on tablets of stone by the hand of God,
without ever mentioning the reams of qualifications that go with them.
Steve McIntyre notes a new paper which tests 18 years of predictions by
global warming models against real-world rainfall and temperature.
Result?
The models are hopeless at predicting anything. From the abstract
(Koutsoyiannis et al):
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained
through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other
disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we
compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation
observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from
around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a
climatic (30-year) scale.
Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common
argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is
unsupported.
Speaking of dud predictions by local models, Ian Castles, former head of
the Australian Bureau of Statistics, checks the Bureau of Meteorology
and CSIRO>s controversial report on future droughts, that the Rudd
Government used this month to whip up panic:
The key finding of the report, as presented in the opening words of
(Primary Industry Minister Tony) Burke>s media release of 6 July, was
that 'Australia could experience drought twice as often and the events
will be twice as severe within 20 to 30 years.' ...
What the Minister didn>t mention was that the report hadn>t been
reviewed by outsiders....
As it happens, a peer-reviewed study of the prospective incidence of
droughts in Australia HAS just been published. The paper 'Comparison of
suitable drought indices for climate change impacts assessment over
Australia towards resource management' appears in the current (August
2008) edition of the International Journal of Climatology - the journal
of the UK Royal Meteorological Society. It is authored by four CSIRO
scientists, three of whom were also authors of the BoM/CSIRO report
(Freddie Mpelasoka, Kevin Hennessy and Bryson Bates) and two of whom
were Coordinating Lead Authors of the IPCC>s 2007 Assessment Report
(Kevin Hennessy and Roger Jones).
In short, the simulations from the two models (of the CSIRO and the
Canadian Climate Centre) suggest that in the medium-term (20-30 years)
there will be a tendency towards a small increase in drought frequency
in most of Australia, but with decreases in drought frequency in some
areas. Although the peer-reviewed study comes from several of the same
scientists, it gives no support to the cries of alarm and disaster which
have accompanied the release of the BoM/CSIRO report.
The impression given by the peer-reviewed paper is vastly different from
that given in the report to the Australian Government.
Castles also finds that a CSIRO paper last year predicted only "up to
20% more droughts over most of Australia by 2030", when its latest
report has the Rudd Government claiming "Australia could experience
droughts twice as often [i.e., 100% more frequently] within 20 to 30
years."
Something is suss.
POSTSCRIPT:
One of the models tested in the National Technical University of Athens
study above was actually the Canadian Climate Centre one that the CSIRO
paper relied upon - and one of the data stations used to check the
predictions was at Alice Springs. So the study>s conclusion is
particularly interesting:
This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not
credible.
UPDATE
Reader Maurie cites another reference on the danger of relying on models
sold be people with something to gain:
UPDATE 2
Ross Gittins, global warming true believer, suddenly doubts models,
after all:
The more important thing to say, however, is that whenever you hear the
word "modelling", your bulldust detector should go into overdrive.
To me, demanding to see modelling is akin to crying, "con me, baby, con
me". Blind me with science.
Don>t forget the sterling efforts of those modellers who predicted how
many motorists would use the Cross City and Lane Cove tunnels..
The truth is that modelling gives the unwary a false sense of certainty
about the future. That>s particularly true of the way politicians use
modelling, quoting cut-down versions of the results as though they>ve
been written on tablets of stone by the hand of God, without ever
mentioning the reams of qualifications that go with them.
Before you take much notice of any modelling results, you have to know
all about the many hidden assumptions that have been made to produce
them, and which particular variables are doing most to drive them...
Pardon? Ross, is that you - global warming sceptic, doubting at last the
models that predict a terrible warming ... that in fact hasn>t occured
for years?
Wait.
Clarification:
the models Gittins is mocking here are the ones the Liberals want to see
from Treasury to check if Kevin Rudd>s emissions trading scheme will
actually make a blind bit of difference to anything but your wallets. As
for the climate models, Gittins remains a true believer. None of the
above applies to them, of course.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/far_from_model_predictions_as_for_the_csiros/
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind
is perfect. It>s like predicting the morning>s weather at six-o>clock in
the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ZB00N
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Scare-mongering exposed |
|
|
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
news:nd-dnU4wL8bvrhLVnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/67x7nf
Hansen is the odd one
James Hansen, Al Gore>s global warming guru, is coming under
increasing pressure, as Christopher Booker
ROFL Who?
[/quote]
FUDGIN' HANSEN that>s who!!!
--
Warnest Regards
Bonzo
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods
but by perpetual repetition." Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of
Meteorology, MIT |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
V for Vendicar
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming Blog 2008 post # 151 |
|
|
"ZB00N" <ZB00N@z00z00.com> wrote
[quote]The world is cooling don>t you know?
[/quote]
Not acording to the measuremetns.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2>C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
V for Vendicar
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Alaska summer Coldest in Decades: gullible Warming to bl |
|
|
"ZB00N" <ZB00N@z00z00.com> wrote
[quote]What cooling trend is that?
This one.
[/quote]
No seriously. What cooling trend?
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2>C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 *************************************** | |
