CRU is a UK institution at the University of East ANglia. Phil Jones is British. He is subject to British law. He asked people to delete emails and threatened to destroy data.
/quote
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
Please pay attention that is plotted in the first quadrant instead of the fourth quadrant. It is _CLEARLY_ labeled that going left to right is going into the past. A correct plot would mirror it on the vertical axis so that the past is to the left. Then proper temporal conclusions could be drawn.
Until the AGW politicians correct this they will not be credible.
Interesting, perhaps you have read different posts than i have. I have never seen any foul language in BS's posts, but have seen plenty of denigration.
This is standard denialist rubbish. Thre's no evidnece of any unusual increase in turnover of climate scientists in the 1990's. Lindzen did claim that Hendrik Tennekes was fired as head of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute because he was sceptical about global warming, but in fact the man retired at 65, which is compulsory in the Netherlands. One doesn't know if Lindzen genuinely though that he had been fired, but either way it casts doubt on both of Linzens other examples of this kind of "persecution".
And you clearly don't understand the evidence, which makes you the voice crying nonsense in the wilderness.
CO2 does produce less radiative forcing than water vapour, but water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere are determined by the surface temperature of the earth - the atmosphere gets back into equilibrium within a few weeks of any excursion - so that radiative forcing by water vapour is a totally predictable dependent variable.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere takes hundreds of years to equilibrate with the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans, and a great deal longer to react with olivine and get converted into carbonate rock, so we do have to worry about what we are doing to its concentration in the atmosphere.
Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas - molecule for molecule - than carbon dioxide, but there is a lot less of it in the atmosphere - 1.8 ppm as against 385ppm of CO2 - so that it contribute only a third of the radiative forcing that CO2 does, which is to say that its efffect doesn't remotely dwarf the effect of CO2.
If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would have made such an absurd claim.
Perhaps you could be more specific? The conventional science - that you obviously don't know much about - does show that progressively incrementing the concentration of atmopsheric CO2 in equal steps produces progressively smaller increments in global temperature, but the process doesn't slef-limit at any temperature that we would find comfortable or remotely survivable.
But that's the way the smart money bets.
Obviously, you haven't heard of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, some 55,8 million years ago, where global temperature went up by around 6 =B0C over 20,000 years
formatting link
quite a bit of that being driven by two short (~1000 years) pulses of methane into the atmosphere, probably from the degassing of clathrates ("methane ice" deposits), We've got quite a lot of methane ice deposits - the risk of drilling into one is one of the things that made off-shore oil drilling an exciting business
formatting link
Granting that you seem to be blind to the observations that show that "meteors are already falling" this roughly the posture of the ostrich with its head in teh sand.
Which data sets do you have in mind? The satellite observations that have been going on for for some thirty years now don't seem to be so easy to discard, and the ice core data, which provides the background information that makes it clear the current burst of warming is unique are also well verified and with cross-checks between the various Antarctic core and the (shorter) Greenlands cores.
Sources that Exxon-Mobil and other groups with a direct interest in being able to dig up and sell fossil carbon have spent quite a lot of money to depict as suspect.
As if weather stations were the only source of evidence.
They aren't considered to be gospel - but they are all consistent with the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is real, that it is already a serious problem, and that it will get to be a much more serious problem if we don't cut back CO2 emissions over the next decade or two.
It's outlasted the fuss about incipient global cooling that did get some play in the media in the 1970's, essentially because the scientific evidence has just kept on building up. It's been more or less conventional wisdom since 1980. Al Gore wrote is first book on the subject in 1991.
formatting link
The current doubts have all been bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobil and it's collaborators.
formatting link
and you reflect the fact that they have spent their money effectively
Perhaps i nearly fall into that strict definition. I say that the AGW concept has fallen way short of being proven. And i find it very suspicious that the immediately get in my face when i say so. Also there is much demonstratable "bad science" used to support their position.
And the costs of your prescription to a disease that you cannot demonstrate causality of is nearly the gross world product.
Considering how much of the curve you have left to climb, you do seem to have skimped on the work.
No. It is more a case of asking why on earth would he have done that? I do persist, but the propositon that the original designer was inept has to remain a possible explanation until you eliminate it. And someties you can't.
I got stuck with using a PAR box-car integrator in 1983 - Seimens had bought one and we'd promised a direct copy of their development machine to Thompson-CSF. The PAR specification said that you could use it to sample at 5MHz, but it wouldn't go faster than 2.2MHz, and when I got into the circuit it was obvious that it couldn't; I got it up to
2.7MHz by swapping in a faster part at the bottle-neck, and then got on the phone to PAR, who couldn't do any better.
Dream on.
I've got no problem about admitting to having made a mistake.Of course, I don't get much practice.
You should look in a mirror. The word "solenoid" comes to mind.
Corrected the raw data. It's called calibration when we do it, but if somebody wants to continue to make a lot of money and your calibration stood in the way, you too would suddenly find that you too had cooked the books.
The other thing i find weird about smokers, is that the vast majority of fire related death is from smoke inhalation. Maybe in spite of all evidence to the contrary they believe that they can develop an immunity to it.
It is difficult to say the somebody doesn't know what they are talking about without introducing an element of denigration. If the people whose posts I was commenting on had managed to get their facts right I wouldn't be obliged to denigrate them, and probably wouldn't have felt any need to comment.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.