| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Not sure how much longer they will be able to keep crunching in the UK |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5561
|
|
| Author |
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Actually that map of more ice/snow, yet warmer temperatures makes sense:
Ice can be -20degrees C, -40 or -50. That is what they were measuring. It's still ice, just not quite as cold. There is slightly more ice because there was more snow, thats all. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
That stupid carbon tax plan is the same one that was bounced about by most governments. Its just a way of getting more money out of our empty pockets and crippling the economies further. They think that if they keep everybody busy trying to pay off the banksters people wont notice job cuts, pension theft, rises in tax, stealth taxes, government corruption and fraud. They will be trying to tax oxygen next.  |
||
|
|
retsof
Former Community Advisor USA Joined: Jul 31, 2005 Post Count: 6824 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
hacking the planet .... geoengineering...
----------------------------------------http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/hac...+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
SUPPORT ADVISOR
Work+GPU i7 8700 12threads School i7 4770 8threads Default+GPU Ryzen 7 3700X 16threads Ryzen 7 3800X 16 threads Ryzen 9 3900X 24threads Home i7 3540M 4threads50% |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
As I have said before Eso conspiracies are usually secret and difficult to prove that they are what you claim to be the truth
----------------------------------------This one is as plain as the nose on your face There's no conspiracy just the reality described by skgiven Unfortunately for us European types we are already paying through that said plain nose Our Chancellor back in the UK today has deferred our 3p rise in fuel duty on the 1st of April and made it 1p April 1p in October and 0.76p in Jan 2011 add on the VAT and that still makes 3.24p extra per litre in "Green Taxes", on top of the 73.75p per litre they are taking at the moment, by the end of this year !!! A grand total of 76.99p Tax per litre on Fuel that will cost in Jan 121.1p per litre if the oil price doesn't go up (tax on Petrol in 2011 will be 174%) 121.1p per litre is £5.50 a gallon for us old timers (£3.50 tax) and this is just the tip of the iceberg of the Carbon Taxation already in place and that iceberg is not melting. Just like the North Pole at the moment it increases in size every year  Dave  [Edit 1 times, last edit by David Autumns at Mar 24, 2010 4:17:16 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
As I have said before Eso conspiracies are usually secret and difficult to prove that they are what you claim to be the truth This one is as plain as the nose on your face There's no conspiracy just the reality described by skgiven Unfortunately for us European types we are already paying through that said plain nose Our Chancellor back in the UK today has deferred our 3p rise in fuel duty on the 1st of April and made it 1p April 1p in October and 0.76p in Jan 2011 add on the VAT and that still makes 3.24p extra per litre in "Green Taxes", on top of the 73.75p per litre they are taking at the moment, by the end of this year !!! A grand total of 76.99p Tax per litre on Fuel that will cost in Jan 121.1p per litre if the oil price doesn't go up (tax on Petrol in 2011 will be 174%) 121.1p per litre is £5.50 a gallon for us old timers (£3.50 tax) and this is just the tip of the iceberg of the Carbon Taxation already in place and that iceberg is not melting. Just like the North Pole at the moment it increases in size every year Dave Sorry - taxes are not proof of some grand conspiracy that 3000+ scientists and dozens of universities have all been paid off by the governments of 130 countries. And no - HadCRU e-mails are not a smoking gun either. I believe you are committing the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent": If AGW is a conspiracy, governments will raise taxes. Governments have raised taxes. Therefore AGW is a conspiracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Mar 24, 2010 4:39:28 PM] |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
skgiven
----------------------------------------Indeed you are correct on the if it's below zero it's still ice argument. However the question is why is the area around Baffin Island allegedly +10C above normal As the temperature cooled to below zero the area surrounding Baffin Island would take longer that its peers to reach zero and the size of the ice cover would suffer You would also expect the North Pole to show earlier melting as the local temperature would get above freezing that much sooner (with a +10C offset) But these datasets do not support this http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm and http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php So someone is metaphorically leaving their thermometers in their hot mugs of coffee at NASA's GISS NASA's GISS is run by the chap who was key in this http://www.capitolclimateaction.org/ The chant being "No More Coal" (but CH4 is OK  ) the same chap who defended these guys (and they won - and see the end result in the first post in this thread) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/se...sts.kingsnorthclimatecamp The granddaddy of Climate Change Hysteria - the man who has Al Gore's ear - Dr James Hansen A plus 10C bias From the hottest of hot temperature series GISTEMP Check out the figures here http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html The truth will win out in the end Dave |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Eso the CRU emails are the smoking gun as they show deliberate manipulation of the data to support their desired outcome and not only those at CRU
----------------------------------------If anyone is "affirming the the consequent" CRU and the related temperature series are the benchmark by which all others will be measured Ironically they will become the de-facto example |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Eso the CRU emails are the smoking gun as they show deliberate manipulation of the data to support their desired outcome and not only those at CRU If anyone is "affirming the the consequent" CRU and the related temperature series are the benchmark by which all others will be measured Ironically they will become the de-facto example Are the CRU data “suspect”? An objective assessment. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...-an-objective-assessment/ As an example, we extracted a sample of raw land-surface station data and corresponding CRU data. These were arbitrarily selected based on the following criteria: the length of record should be ~100 years or longer, and the standard reference period 1961–1990 (used to calculate SAT anomalies) must contain no more than 4 missing values. We also selected stations spread as widely as possible over the globe. We randomly chose 94 out of a possible 318 long records. Of these, 65 were sufficiently complete during the reference period to include in the analysis. These were split into two groups of 33 and 32 stations (Set A and Set B), which were then analyzed separately. Results are shown in the following figures. The key points: both Set A and Set B indicate warming with trends that are statistically identical between the CRU data and the raw data (>99% confidence); the histograms show that CRU quality control has, as expected, narrowed the variance (both extreme positive and negative values removed).  Comparison of CRUTEM3v data with raw station data taken from World Monthly Surface Station Climatology. On the left are the mean temperature anomalies from each pair of randomly chosen times series. On the right are the distribution of trends in those time series and their means and standard errors. (The standard error provides an estimate of how well the sampling of ~30 stations represents the full global data set assuming a Gaussian distribution.) Note that not all the trends are for identical time periods, since not all data sets are the same length. Conclusion: There is no indication whatsoever of any problem with the CRU data. An independent study (by a molecular biologist it Italy, as it happens) came to the same conclusion using a somewhat different analysis. None of this should come as any surprise of course, since any serious errors would have been found and published already. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Eso the CRU emails are the smoking gun as they show deliberate manipulation of the data to support their desired outcome and not only those at CRU If anyone is "affirming the the consequent" CRU and the related temperature series are the benchmark by which all others will be measured Ironically they will become the de-facto example What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html Climate Science Not a House of Cards But do the potentially unethical acts implied by these e-mails invalidate the hypothesis that human output of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, creates a serious risk of rapid climate change? No. Outspoken critics often portray climate science as a house of cards, built on a shaky edifice of limited data and broad suppositions. However, it's more realistic to think of the science as a deck of cards, spread out, face up. Some data and interpretations of those data are more certain than others, of course. But pulling out one or two interpretations, or the results of a few scientists, does not change the overall picture. Take away two or three cards, and there are still 49 or 50 cards facing you. The "house of cards" view results partly from the representation of human-induced climate change in opinion polls and in the press, which split the debate into "believers" and "skeptics." This dichotomy is misleading for many reasons, particularly because it implies that those who are concerned about human-induced climate change believe every single claim made by every scientist on this topic, in the way that some fundamentalists claim to believe in the literal truth of every word in a religious text. Similarly, it implies that all skeptics doubt the entire theory. In fact, most scientists are skeptics, to one extent or another, about climate science and almost everything else. Of course, there are a few who actually believe with complete certainty that they are right, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. These folks can't conceive of the possibility that they could be mistaken; they really are like religious zealots. However, the genuine scientific skeptics greatly outnumber the true believers, and in most scientific debates the skeptics prevail ... after a while. But global warming is very likely, and reasonably probable outcomes could be fatal. Ignoring it would be like Russian roulette. Want to play? I do not. |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
But Eso that is not the whole story is it
----------------------------------------We have the UHI effect and the disappearing numbers of thermometers around the globe and so the comparison is not apples with apples. We have software so convoluted working out these values that even the software's maintainers don't know how it works. We have only the modified data record left not the original source data and no idea how the two relate. We have cherry picked data presented on how our current climate compares with the past and we have requests between fellow scientists to delete potentially incriminating emails Now that's how it looks to me, I may be misled, but no one is denying they wrote any of the contents of the CRU leak The worst of it is these very few scientists are the key input into the IPCC recommendations as presented at Copenhagen - not 3000+ all agreeing Real science by real scientists is suffering on account of this appalling PR Dave |
||
|
|
|