Posted on 12/05/2009 7:29:19 AM PST by Delacon
Consider the Brits on the sideline until 2012 on global warming. The Met Office will need three years to rebuild ground-based climate models while recompiling raw data from the past 160 years to replace the data that the University of East Anglia’s CRU destroyed years ago. They want to create an open and transparent full data set, but until then have to back down from any of the conclusions that relied on UEA-CRU’s models (via QandO):
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The British government is attempting to silence the Met Office, however:
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
But I thought they were interested in science, not political hackery!
The Met Office is taking the correct approach. The data on which they largely relied has not only been shown to have been corrupted by bias and corruption, it’s also been destroyed. Knowing the UEA-CRU’s credibility as a scientific effort has been compromised, real scientists would insist on recreating the data set in a thoroughly testable and transparent process before proceeding to use any of the conclusions reached from the previous work to form any more recommendations for action.
In fact, the UN, the UK, and the rest of the world should be insisting on the same approach — if they were interested in science in the first place. The UK’s efforts to quash the Met Office’s review, which is what scientists would demand in any other context, shows that the politicians aren’t terribly interested in whether AGW is scientifically supportable, or even true at all. They want the power that AGW hysteria gives them to seize control of private-industry production and the choices available to people now.
It’s the ultimate elitist entrée to statism, and they’re not going to let Climategate get in the way of it — even if the scientists themselves start balking at the political hackery surrounding AGW.
“All the king’s horses and all the king’s men...”
It seems to me that this is good news.
If it takes three years or more to recreate the data and clean up the computer models, then that should delay any politicians hare brained ideas to share the wealth with cap and trade or any other carbon trading system.
If the current temperature patterns prevail, we could have three more years of cool weather and that would make it even more difficult for the “global warming cultists” to push their Marxist ideas.
Statists don’t really need science to promote AGW. They know how to manipulate the emotions of self-loathing people who will accept the idea of AGW as an article of faith. Science need not apply.
If they really want some integrity, they’ll ask Bjorn Lomborg to help them analyze and crunch the data. That would be a fitting apology for having ridiculed and ostrasized him after he did his own study of environmental data and dared to tell the truth that the planet is getting cleaner thanks to modern industry driven by private enterprise.
Meanwhile hordes of warmists have plans to build huge bonfires in undisclosed locales and try aiming their magnifying glasses at the sun to reflect them on weather stations. They’re getting desperate.
The Rats will just claim that because the POSSIBILITIES as a result of globull warming are so dire, that they had better start taxing us into poverty anyway...just in case.
They will get it from the same place they got all the other data. They’ll just make it up.
.
But then again, all GCMs predict the "greenhouse hot spot", which no one can find — That sort of makes all the computer models WRONG. In a sane world, that would be the end of it.
And then their is the lefts favorite trick, change the language, words and names. We now know AGW goes from global warming, then changes to 'climate change', and now to it's ultimate resting place FRAUD.
BTTT.
Truly, politicians have no love for truth or science, merely power. When scientific quackery becomes a venue for them to seize more power, then that quackery will be treated as scientific writ.
This is HUGH! Seriesly.
IPCC will need to restune ALL their beebers.
Manbearpig may not be dead, but it’s in cryogenic suspended animation for sure.
We can’t let the MSM win this.
Best ClimateGate clips (show everybody you know):
This is the “foot in the door” for opponents to scrutinize the data and methodology of this hoax.
A statement from the Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society.
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world-class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change, now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations, involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.
The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN’s climate change panel (the IPCC) — made up of the world’s foremost climate scientists — provided unequivocal evidence for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. However, the IPCC process is based only on information already published and even since the last Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly.
* Global carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise, and methane concentrations have started to increase again after a decade of near stability;
* The decade 2000–2009 has been warmer, on average, than any other decade in the previous 150 years;
* Observed changes in precipitation (decreases in the subtropics and increases in high latitudes) have been at the upper limit of model projections;
* Arctic summer sea-ice cover declined suddenly in 2007 and 2008, prompting the realisation that this environment may be far more vulnerable to change than previously thought;
* There is increasing evidence of continued and accelerating sea-level rises around the world.
We expect some of the most significant impacts of climate change to occur when natural variability is exacerbated by long-term global warming, so that even small changes in global temperatures can produce damaging local and regional effects. Year-on-year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events — potentially intensified by global warming — are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:
* In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007;
* Increased risk of summer heatwaves such as the summer of 2003 across the UK and Europe;
* Around the world, increasing incidence of extreme weather events with unprecedented levels of damage to society and infrastructure. This year’s unusually destructive typhoon season in South-East Asia, while not easy to attribute directly to climate change, illustrates the vulnerabilities to such events;
* Sea-level rises leading to dangerous exposure of populations in, for example, Bangladesh, the Maldives and other island states;
* Persistent droughts, leading to pressures on water and food resources, and the increasing incidence of forest fires in regions where future projections indicate long-term reductions in rainfall, such as south-west Australia and the Mediterranean.
These emerging signals are consistent with what we expect from our projections, giving us confidence in the science and models that underpin them. In the absence of action to mitigate climate change, we can expect much larger changes in the coming decades than have been seen so far.
Some countries and regions are already vulnerable to climate variability and change, but in the coming decades all countries will be affected, regardless of their affluence or individual emissions. Climate change will have major consequences for food production, water availability, ecosystems and human health, migration pressures, and regional instability. In the UK, we will be affected both directly and indirectly, through the effects of climate change on, for example, global markets (notably in food), health, extent of flooding, and sea levels.
The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to long-term changes in the climate system that will persist for millennia. Our growing understanding of the balance of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial systems tells us that the greater the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the greater the risk of long-term damage to Earth’s life-support systems. Known or probable damage includes ocean acidification, loss of rain forests, degradation of ecosystems, and desertification. These effects will lead to loss of biodiversity and reduced agricultural productivity. Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases can substantially limit the extent and severity of long-term climate change.
Summary
The 2007 IPCC Assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions we can likely expect a world of increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human populations. However, even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened. The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilisation could be severe.
Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council
Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society
#1 They figure they need 3 years for this to blow over.
And
#2 They might get lucky, since sunspots might be more active in 3 years, creating ACTUAL warming. Then, they could say “SEE?? We told you the world is warming.”
After all, since we’re cooling right now, eventually temps MUST go back up toward the rolling average. Temps cannot “keep going down forever.”
We’re in a cooling cycle, so the Communist UN just needs to WAIT until temps come back up toward the baseline in a few years. They’ve just hit the “snooze” button for 3 years - that’s all.
some of the heaviest snowfalls to Michigan's upper penninsula. I believe there was some 39 feet at Ontonagon in 1936
That doesn't see so odd to me (except maybe for a two-year lag).
One doesn't need particularly colder temperatures to get snowfall. With the greater warmth would've been an stronger, on-going engine to keep more moisture as uncondensed in the atmosphere. When that extra moisture finds cooling to condense it out, along with some residual lifting to allow for a maturing winter thunderstorm, down it can come, with an apparent vengeance!
HF
good. maybe now they’ll be honest. the earth goes through cataclysms every few thousands of yrs. global impact events every few million years. all you have to do is watch the Earth series. The earth is as ever changing as the waves of the sea.
Prince Charles only gave us about three years before the world ended in a fireball didn’t he?
I wonder why we haven’t heard anything from him lately...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.