BUSHY
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by BUSHY
-
-
Read this http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html. It may make the anomaly chart more clear.
-
I think that the answer lies here GW. "The company also hopes to link rural Alaska communities to the cable. It has applied for $350 million in federal stimulus money, nearly 5% of that total for broadband grant and loan program, for lines to eight hub communities in western and northern Alaska. The Asia-Europe line does not depend on stimulus money, Ebell said."
-
Six inches here and fell after midnight. Roads are going to be bad.
-
Short spell of light snow here 5 min ago.
-
I am aware of that VP and yes, Ignore the into.
-
VP I would like yor take on this paper. http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf
-
New Monkton video http://www.prisonpla...-criminals.html
-
It seems so VP. There have been manipulations identified already but without the complete code it will be difficult to pin down.
(For instance, in the subfolder "osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline." <BR itxtvisited="1">But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."<BR itxtvisited="1">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html<BR itxtvisited="1">
-
I take that back, as I see more posts on code manipulation by various programmers familiar with FORTRAN etc. it is becoming clear that something is/was afoot.
-
Pete, maybe not so much conspiracy as self delusion, group think, superior complex thing.
-
Dev dont be juvenile, you know what I mean.
-
It is all very well calling conspiracy, manipulation etc. BUT it appears that there has been manipulation of data and at this point there is definite proof in some cases. Perhaps and probably much more to come as the revelations of Pielke http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/climatgate-pielke-senior-on-the-ncdc-ccsp-report-strong-arm-tactics/. for instance brings to light hidden issues. Are and have we all been taken for fools?
Yes, because the majority fail to question authority.
-
Ok so all tall people are wet. heee hee
(You're joking aren't you?)
No i am not. There is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion now.
-
Sorry Dev but this is only one station and the evidence of manipulation is tending to lean towards overwhelming. Similar stuff is now coming out from Australian records. The temperature data records worldwide appear to have been massaged and adjusted inappropriately. I think that an audit of all records regardless of cost is called for here.
-
Watch ---- http://www.youtube.c...oDtqS-A&feature The second half reflects how the pushing of peer review as a tactic has been effective -- bearing in mind how the process has been hijacked as revealed in the e-mails.
-
7.0 for me please.
-
That was the most pathetic attempt at defending AGW that I have yet heard (well maybe not). Injecting Palladium, guilt trip about fridges and call centres etc. Where is the science? Come on you guys you have to do better than that.
-
The key issue still seems to be the hammering that the amount of multi-year ice has taken. It means that although the area of ice in the Arctic has increased (albeit that it is still the third-smallest extent on record), the volume of ice may not be much greater. Consequently, the Arctic ice is particularly vulnerable to any further warm years until the amount of thicker multi-year ice increases.
-
With regard to earlier posts on ice thickness etc.
"Another focal point of the campaign were large-scale measurements of ice thickness in the inner Arctic, which were conducted in close collaboration of the Alfred Wegener Institute together with the University of Alberta. An ice-thickness sensor, the so-called EM-Bird, was put into operation under a plane for the first time ever. To conduct the measurements, Polar 5 dragged the sensor which was attached to a steel cable of eighty metres length in a height of twenty metres over the ice cover. Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions). All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. The researchers found the thickest ice with a thickness of 15 metres along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island."
-
I'd just posted on the general thread and realised we may have needed that post here to. Seeing as ice extent only requires a 15% (or more) coverage the more open water we accrue over summer allows for a greater distortion in 'ice extent' as the remaining pack can spread out and so long as it covers 15% of the open water will appear as it had when there was 100% ice cover.
Maybe , once ICESAT is up , we need to look at measuring ice volume across the arctic so we can better get a feel for the losses and not become confused when the weather stretches out the ice to cover a larger extent with 15% cover?
This page http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php shows that lower percentage ice is not counted. Compare to cryo maps.
-
Funny thing that, long term average etc. Let us assume that for 100 years the temperature was at 17 deg. Then for the next 100 years 18 deg. The alarmist view would be that for 100 years the the statistics would show that the temperature was rising year on year albeit at a small fraction. See what I mean?
-
Actually the models have been proven to be extremely accurate over the last 11 years, the prediction and effect of long term solar cycles and other cycles such as el Niño/la Niña events are very accurate, they of cause have a level of uncertainty but global climate is predicted in trends and not day to day weather and thats what they are very good at.
Oh dear really?
Well even the solar physicists have no clue anymore and that is official. What effect of long term solar cycles are we talking about here and exactly what models include these in their data input? I will answer that for you, none do.
The truth of the matter is that the climate models have not been able to predict a thing. The assumption was that CO2 was the main driver and virtually nothing else but that has proved to be erroneous.
It seems that we have to start from scratch and reassess the data anew. The climate can be predicted over lengthy periods I believe but first we need to establish exactly what the principle drivers are and how these all interact with each other. The issue is proving far more complicated than many would like to believe and mans input probably irrelevant or at best negligible.
-
Peculiar though how there has been an upturn in area, as if there is a freeze up of melt pools and so on. Interesting times as said before.
-
Yup there will be a response and it will not be well received.
Today's Weather And General Chat
in Weather reports
Posted
At least an inch here in Raunds and really coming down heavily.