Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Earth Changes / Global Warming / Chemtrails / Weather Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20-11-2009, 06:30 PM   #41
decim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,137
Likes: 2,985 (1,695 Posts)
Default

X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.1
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:11:47 +0000
To: mike Salmon
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Fwd: Re:


>X-Sender: [email protected]
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:18:19 +0100
>To: Keith Briffa
>From: [email protected] (Lloyd Keigwin)
>Subject: Re:
>
>Dear keith,
> The data follow (age, cal yrs; d18-O of G. ruber; 3-pt avg). I've
>decided to present the data in a slightly different manner than which they
>were originally published. Here, now, I have taken the two series of
>measurements (two subcores of same box core), each with their own age model
>based on AMS 14C, and lumped them. Next, I've run a 3-pt avg through the
>combined series.
> The final figure of the published data (1996) attenuated the signal
>by lumping the data into 50yr boxes, whereas this way we see the fuller
>amplitude of the signal and the good agreement between the two series.
>However, I only calculated the SST for the "boxcar" data. If the following
>are suitable, that's Ok with me. If you want SSTs, either you go with the
>original figure or give me more time. Best wishes, Lloyd
>
>
>
>38.2 -0.31
>47 -0.53 -0.39
>114.5 -0.34 -0.41
>141 -0.37 -0.36
>190.9 -0.36 -0.36
>236 -0.36 -0.33
>267.3 -0.27 -0.32
>330 -0.33 -0.25
>343.6 -0.14 -0.21
>420 -0.16 -0.24
>424 -0.42 -0.41
>433 -0.64 -0.50
>442 -0.43 -0.62
>451 -0.8 -0.65
>460 -0.71 -0.69
>465 -0.57 -0.71
>469 -0.84 -0.62
>475 -0.44 -0.61
>476 -0.55 -0.47
>477 -0.43 -0.52
>478 -0.57 -0.45
>568.3 -0.34 -0.43
>619 -0.37 -0.38
>658.7 -0.42 -0.42
>701 -0.48 -0.43
>749 -0.39 -0.45
>783 -0.48 -0.46
>809 -0.52 -0.48
>866 -0.43 -0.47
>869 -0.45 -0.49
>897 -0.59 -0.63
>928 -0.84 -0.69
>929 -0.63 -0.67
>959 -0.54 -0.60
>972.4 -0.63 -0.65
>989 -0.77 -0.60
>999.2 -0.41 -0.62
>1020 -0.68 -0.52
>1026 -0.47 -0.54
>1052 -0.48 -0.50
>1052.9 -0.56 -0.50
>1079.7 -0.47 -0.49
>1083 -0.43 -0.46
>1106.5 -0.49 -0.59
>1114 -0.84 -0.66
>1133.3 -0.65 -0.67
>1146 -0.53 -0.59
>1160.1 -0.59 -0.61
>1177 -0.7 -0.55
>1187 -0.36 -0.53
>1190 -0.53 -0.43
>1203 -0.39 -0.44
>1213.8 -0.4 -0.41
>1216 -0.45 -0.39
>1228 -0.31 -0.36
>1240.6 -0.33 -0.33
>1241 -0.34 -0.35
>1254 -0.37 -0.33
>1295.4 -0.28 -0.37
>1378.1 -0.45 -0.35
>1460.8 -0.31 -0.35
>1482 -0.28 -0.28
>1543.5 -0.24 -0.27
>1626.3 -0.28 -0.26
>1709 -0.25 -0.23
>1709 -0.17 -0.30
>1872.3 -0.48 -0.32
>1937 -0.32 -0.46
>2035.7 -0.58 -0.48
>2062 -0.53 -0.53
>2188 -0.48 -0.48
>2199 -0.42 -0.45
>2313 -0.46 -0.41
>2362.3 -0.35 -0.44
>2438 -0.5 -0.59
>2525.7 -0.93 -0.69
>2564 -0.64 -0.66
>2689 -0.41 -0.47
>2689 -0.36 -0.39
>2696 -0.4 -0.42
>2703 -0.5 -0.44
>2710 -0.41 -0.57
>2717 -0.8 -0.55
>2719 -0.45 -0.60
>2724 -0.55 -0.55
>2731 -0.64 -0.55
>2748 -0.45 -0.59
>2778 -0.67 -0.60
>2808 -0.67 -0.67
>2837 -0.66 -0.66
>2846.3 -0.65 -0.63
>2867 -0.59 -0.73
>2961.7 -0.96 -0.71
>3077 -0.58 -0.82
>3096 -0.91 -0.73
>3115 -0.7
>114.5 -0.34 -0.4133333333333333
>141 -0.37 -0.3566666666666667
>190.9 -0.36 -0.3633333333333333
>236 -0.36 -0.33
>267.3 -0.27 -0.32
>330 -0.33 -0.2466666666666667
>343.6 -0.14 -0.21
>420 -0.16 -0.24
>424 -0.42 -0.4066666666666667
>433 -0.64 -0.4966666666666667
>442 -0.43 -0.6233333333333333
>451 -0.8 -0.6466666666666667
>460 -0.71 -0.6933333333333333
>465 -0.57 -0.7066666666666667
>469 -0.84 -0.6166666666666667
>475 -0.44 -0.61
>476 -0.55 -0.4733333333333333
>477 -0.43 -0.5166666666666667
>478 -0.57 -0.4466666666666667
>568.3 -0.34 -0.4266666666666667
>619 -0.37 -0.3766666666666667
>658.7 -0.42 -0.4233333333333333
>701 -0.48 -0.43
>749 -0.39 -0.45
>783 -0.48 -0.4633333333333333
>809 -0.52 -0.4766666666666667
>866 -0.43 -0.4666666666666667
>869 -0.45 -0.49
>897 -0.59 -0.6266666666666667
>928 -0.84 -0.6866666666666667
>929 -0.63 -0.67
>959 -0.54 -0.6
>972.4 -0.63 -0.6466666666666667
>989 -0.77 -0.6033333333333333
>999.2 -0.41 -0.62
>1020 -0.68 -0.52
>1026 -0.47 -0.5433333333333333
>1052 -0.48 -0.5033333333333333
>1052.9 -0.56 -0.5033333333333333
>1079.7 -0.47 -0.4866666666666667
>1083 -0.43 -0.4633333333333333
>1106.5 -0.49 -0.5866666666666667
>1114 -0.84 -0.66
>1133.3 -0.65 -0.6733333333333333
>1146 -0.53 -0.59
>1160.1 -0.59 -0.6066666666666667
>1177 -0.7 -0.55
>1187 -0.36 -0.53
>1190 -0.53 -0.4266666666666667
>1203 -0.39 -0.44
>1213.8 -0.4 -0.4133333333333333
>1216 -0.45 -0.3866666666666667
>1228 -0.31 -0.3633333333333333
>1240.6 -0.33 -0.3266666666666667
>1241 -0.34 -0.3466666666666667
>1254 -0.37 -0.33
>1295.4 -0.28 -0.3666666666666667
>1378.1 -0.45 -0.3466666666666667
>1460.8 -0.31 -0.3466666666666667
>1482 -0.28 -0.2766666666666667
>1543.5 -0.24 -0.2666666666666667
>1626.3 -0.28 -0.2566666666666667
>1709 -0.25 -0.2333333333333333
>1709 -0.17 -0.3
>1872.3 -0.48 -0.3233333333333333
>1937 -0.32 -0.46
>2035.7 -0.58 -0.4766666666666667
>2062 -0.53 -0.53
>2188 -0.48 -0.4766666666666667
>2199 -0.42 -0.4533333333333333
>2313 -0.46 -0.41
>2362.3 -0.35 -0.4366666666666667
>2438 -0.5 -0.5933333333333333
>2525.7 -0.93 -0.69
>2564 -0.64 -0.66
>2689 -0.41 -0.47
>2689 -0.36 -0.39
>2696 -0.4 -0.42
>2703 -0.5 -0.4366666666666667
>2710 -0.41 -0.57
>2717 -0.8 -0.5533333333333333
>2719 -0.45 -0.6
>2724 -0.55 -0.5466666666666667
>2731 -0.64 -0.5466666666666667
>2748 -0.45 -0.5866666666666667
>2778 -0.67 -0.5966666666666667
>2808 -0.67 -0.6666666666666667
>2837 -0.66 -0.66
>2846.3 -0.65 -0.6333333333333333
>2867 -0.59 -0.7333333333333333
>2961.7 -0.96 -0.71
>3077 -0.58 -0.8166666666666667
>3096 -0.91 -0.73
>3115 -0.7
>L. D. Keigwin ([email protected])
>McLean Lab., m/s 8
>Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
>360 Woods Hole Rd.
>Woods Hole, MA 02543
>
>T:508 289 2784
>F: 508 457 2183

--
Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784
__________________
DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.

Last edited by decim; 20-11-2009 at 06:53 PM.
decim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 06:41 PM   #42
largejack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: teesside
Posts: 9,386
Likes: 651 (281 Posts)
Default

And at the same time these are discovered, Cumbria is under water and inevitably it will soon get turned into a climate change issue, or at least it will hide this information. Just a co-incidence, nothing to worry about.
__________________
Fools speak because they have to say something, wise men speak because they have something to say. PLATO. And then... there is Tony Blair.

It doesn't matter if this world is real or an illusion, the effects are still the same.
largejack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 06:49 PM   #43
mark1963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,645
Likes: 58 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
for [email protected]; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
Received: (from [email protected]) by fw.greenpeace.org (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id PAA07053 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by fw.greenpeace.org via smap (V1.3)
id sma006373; Tue, 10 Oct 00 15:45:28 +0200
Received: from mail3.uk.gl3 (mail.uk.gl3 [192.168.244.10])
by bb.uk.gl3 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28271
for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:44 +0100
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from dial01.uk.gl3 by mail3.uk.gl3 with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1460.8)
id T466PKG6; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:40 +0100
From: "paul horsman"
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: climate negotiations/wto etc.
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Status: O

Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,

Paul


---------------
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace,
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
Tel: +44 171 865 8286
Fax: +44 171 865 8201
Mob: +44 7801 212990
Just read this from the d/l of their documents - look at the phrase "globalisation agenda" in the first paragraph.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha

www.thrivingaudios.com
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 06:50 PM   #44
decim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,137
Likes: 2,985 (1,695 Posts)
Default

Documentations and Inputs from Professor Zhaomei Zeng on the selection of the 84 (42‐pairs of
urban‐rural) stations used in the 1990 GRL and 1990 Nature papers
Prepared by
Wei‐Chyung Wang, SUNY‐Albany
(2/22/2008)

Background: Because the station history for 49 out of the 84 (42‐pairs of urban‐rural) stations used in
the 1990 GRL and 1990 Nature papers were not included in the 1991 DOE data report, charge of “fabrication and/or misrepresentation” was raised about the statement of “few, if any, changes…In location” made in the two papers. In 14 February 2008, the Inquiry Committee expressed need for “documentations and inputs from the Respondent’s coauthor……necessary to allow for any clear determination” on the charge.

Actions: After receiving the Inquiry Committee report on 18 February 2008, I immediately communicated with Professor Zhaomei Zeng (the co‐author of both 1990 GRL paper and 1991 DOE data report), who made the statement. Currently, although retired from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP)/Chinese Academy of Sciences, she continues conducting research at IAP. Inputs: Professor Zeng sent me a description (in Chinese) of the criteria for station selection with a Table marked with the status of station moves for each station of the 84‐stations. Her input is attached below as an Appendix. Key points are noted here:
• Out of the 4,000 stations, 60‐ and 205‐ station networks were selected based on the “station
history” considering the following factors: data length; number of site moves; data gaps; spatial
representation, etc. While the station history was included in the 1991 DOE report for the 60‐
station network, they were not included in the 205‐station network (published in 1993 DOE
report which Professor Zeng is also a co‐author) due partly to its not being a requirement under
the US‐China agreement, and partly to the huge effort coupled with inadequate resources
(manpower and hardware) to digitize them.
• The 84‐stations are a subset of the 60‐ and 205‐stations datasets with 35‐stations from the 60‐
station dataset, and 49‐stations from the 205‐station dataset. Note that while the station
history of the 35‐stations was used by Professor Zeng in compiling the number of station moves
in the Table included in the Appendix, the 49‐stations (most rural stations) are based on her
recollection (together with checking against the present‐day station location), simply because
the original station history manuscripts (archived at IAP) and her detailed notes were no longer
available due to several office moves over the almost 19‐years time span.
• Below is a summary using Professor Zeng’s inputs for easy apprehension:
# of Station moves
(1954‐83)
# of Stations
(total 35‐stations)
# of stations
(total 49‐stations)
No 8 17
1 15 13
2 8 11
3 3 0
4 1 0
No longer remember ‐‐‐ 8
Conclusions: From the inputs provided by Professor Zeng, it is quite clear that she (1) had access to
the station history when compiling the 60‐ and 205‐stations datasets, and (2) used the criteria of “few, if
any, changes in…location” to select the 84‐stations used in the 1990 GRL and 1990 Nature papers. The
charge of “fabrication and/or misrepresentation” is false.
Other Relevant Notes:
On 18 February 2008, Professor Jones (Lead author of the 1990 Nature paper) sent me a manuscript,
“Urbanization effects in large‐scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China” which was
recently submitted to J. Geophysical Research for publication. In the paper, The most relevant finding is
that comparing the 42‐rural station data used in the 1990 GRL and Nature papers with those adjusted
for homogeneity of a 728‐station network yield very much the same results, implying that the station
moves, if any, really did not matter when a representative set of stations (here 42‐stations) was used.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: Reader discretion advised. The above post is entirely fictional, for entertainment purposes only. Any similarities to real life events, animals, humans, persons, politicians, or any other form of organisation entity living, dead or in any other state of existence are coincidental. Any opinion, comment or statements related or attributed to this username are not necessarily nor implied to be those held by the ip/computer/username or other electronic media device or service owner/user.
decim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:00 PM   #45
gripit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

from wattsupwiththat.com

Quote:

I downloaded the zip file, unpacked it, browsed a bit. I opened a .pdf file entitled “RulesOfTheGame.pdf”. Very interesting document. Most compelling is that I broke open the metadata for this file. The file date stamp is Oct. 3, 2006, the metadata says it was created Oct 14, 2005 using QuarkExpress v.6.1 (released in 2004). All properties and metadata for this file definitely appear genuine to me.

Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.

Excerpt:
a new way of thinking

Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.
gripit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:06 PM   #46
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: Gil Compo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data - One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009

Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Gil,
These will do for my purpose. I won't pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft
paper. As you're fully aware you're going to have to go some ways to figuring out what's
causing the differences.
You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don't think it is going to make much
difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought
to include the NCDC dataset as well.
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset.
In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the
NH20-70 land domain.
The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967
or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming
back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th
century (the 1900s).
The longer periods are those you've noticed - the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also
something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off
again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons
would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I'd expect the differences to
be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to
sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line
back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the
HadCRUT3/GISS average.
Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input
during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey
spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you
might have?
One final thing - don't worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we'll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low - all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues.
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you'll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
At 20:45 09/11/2009,
clear evidence of suppressing thr facts to suit their agenda..carbon tax!
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:08 PM   #47
aura
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 800
Likes: 28 (23 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lextorite View Post
I've finally found a site that is hosting it. You can download the zip file at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
Thanks.
aura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:09 PM   #48
freereality
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 73
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

This is great that the truth comes out, but smog and fossil fuels still piss me off. I live in a city where smog is probably altering the DNA of many people. The other day I was behind a firetruck in traffic and the horrid spew that was coming from this machine as i drove behind it was unbearable. Even when shifting over 2 lanes I was still bombarded by it.

I'm no apologist for these lying scum, but would many agree that the excess pollution in big cities can't be good for you? Do we continue milking the earth of fossil fuels and polluting us to death or still try to find alternative energy sources? Just because climate change was proven as a hoax does it mean we continue supporting big oil and have them milk us for every last discresionary dollar we have?

It's a pisser because the rothchilds and other big wigs are the main ones pushing the alternative energy agenda. How can we get alternative energy sources without these illuminati heathons taking advantage of it?
freereality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:11 PM   #49
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gripit View Post
on the back of that document they have used the gandi quote
first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you then you win!
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:16 PM   #50
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freereality View Post
This is great that the truth comes out, but smog and fossil fuels still piss me off. I live in a city where smog is probably altering the DNA of many people. The other day I was behind a firetruck in traffic and the horrid spew that was coming from this machine as i drove behind it was unbearable. Even when shifting over 2 lanes I was still bombarded by it.

I'm no apologist for these lying scum, but would many agree that the excess pollution in big cities can't be good for you? Do we continue milking the earth of fossil fuels and polluting us to death or still try to find alternative energy sources? Just because climate change was proven as a hoax does it mean we continue supporting big oil and have them milk us for every last discresionary dollar we have?

It's a pisser because the rothchilds and other big wigs are the main ones pushing the alternative energy agenda. How can we get alternative energy sources without these illuminati heathons taking advantage of it?
no..they want you to pay for pollution...
what happen when there is big money at stake..the economy come first over pollution..a massive cash cow..
look at the NHS and the money it is generating..hospitals full.building more..massive waiting lines..business is booming!
it will be the same if they can leverage carbon tax..a political cash cow for generations..with the answers ALWAYS ending in an INCREASE in carbon taxes to combat climate change through pollution..
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:20 PM   #51
spongeblip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South of the Border..
Posts: 178
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Talking This is massive



Thanks for the heads up!
__________________
That's it!! I have had enough of being treated like an idiot I don't know about you all, but I am going to take action and flush the shit out of politics.. Can't say how or when, but when I do get there, I will let you all know.
Just remember that a rasta told you this and all will become apparent in time..

Much love
Blip
spongeblip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:26 PM   #52
gripit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
“Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”
Quote:
tux:mail> cat 1254108338.txt
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/1...ed/#more-12937
gripit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:26 PM   #53
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freereality View Post
This is great that the truth comes out, but smog and fossil fuels still piss me off. I live in a city where smog is probably altering the DNA of many people. The other day I was behind a firetruck in traffic and the horrid spew that was coming from this machine as i drove behind it was unbearable. Even when shifting over 2 lanes I was still bombarded by it.

I'm no apologist for these lying scum, but would many agree that the excess pollution in big cities can't be good for you? Do we continue milking the earth of fossil fuels and polluting us to death or still try to find alternative energy sources? Just because climate change was proven as a hoax does it mean we continue supporting big oil and have them milk us for every last discresionary dollar we have?

It's a pisser because the rothchilds and other big wigs are the main ones pushing the alternative energy agenda. How can we get alternative energy sources without these illuminati heathons taking advantage of it?
We do need to stop with all the pollution and garbage chemicals floating around; it affects plant, animal and insect life a lot more than it does the planet itself. If we all should perish, the planet will eventually rid itself of all the crap we've left behind.... then it would become a host for a new set of organisms. I agree with you, we need to a better job with controlling pollution and the use of all the unnecessary chemicals that are thrown at us.

As for the slime balls who currently run the show; this whole scam seems to be a way for them to make money off of a bogus ecological turnaround of some kind.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:28 PM   #54
freereality
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 73
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
no..they want you to pay for pollution...
what happen when there is big money at stake..the economy come first over pollution..a massive cash cow..
look at the NHS and the money it is generating..hospitals full.building more..massive waiting lines..business is booming!
it will be the same if they can leverage carbon tax..a political cash cow for generations..with the answers ALWAYS ending in an INCREASE in carbon taxes to combat climate change through pollution..

Yes I agree the carbon tax is a big pile of rubbish. But this doesn't address the fact that I don't want to breath in smog in the city and be a slave to the oil companies. We should be able to have alternative energy without a carbon tax, plain and simple. Then let supply and demand dictate what is best for humanity. My guess is people will choose electric vehicles over combustion engines in the long run, not due to global warming, but because the demand is there to not breath in smog.
freereality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:28 PM   #55
spongeblip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South of the Border..
Posts: 178
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Thumbs down "blip"

Quote:
Originally Posted by gripit View Post
Why are they using blip? That's part of my forum name - the charlatans..
__________________
That's it!! I have had enough of being treated like an idiot I don't know about you all, but I am going to take action and flush the shit out of politics.. Can't say how or when, but when I do get there, I will let you all know.
Just remember that a rasta told you this and all will become apparent in time..

Much love
Blip
spongeblip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:37 PM   #56
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freereality View Post
Yes I agree the carbon tax is a big pile of rubbish. But this doesn't address the fact that I don't want to breath in smog in the city and be a slave to the oil companies. We should be able to have alternative energy without a carbon tax, plain and simple. Then let supply and demand dictate what is best for humanity. My guess is people will choose electric vehicles over combustion engines in the long run, not due to global warming, but because the demand is there to not breath in smog.
i fully agree, but when these powerful families controling the creation, supply and collection of currency, they manipulate the markets to ensure self financial preservation, regardless of the effect on our environment..
corruptions rules through secrecy!
we need first to bring about a real change..a change in the way the countries are run!!
fully open accountable governance, with prosecution on all wrong doings!!
then sort out the pollution issue through fining culprits the clean up costs etc.
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:38 PM   #57
whiterain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,333
Likes: 192 (100 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
clear evidence of suppressing thr facts to suit their agenda..carbon tax!
to that you can add the phrase

'Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !'

the words of an experienced cover up artist methinks
__________________
Usually just thinking out loud
whiterain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:40 PM   #58
the nine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,328
Likes: 4,611 (2,581 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterain View Post
to that you can add the phrase

'Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !'

the words of an experienced cover up artist methinks
+1
bastards..!!
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:44 PM   #59
whiterain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,333
Likes: 192 (100 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
+1
bastards..!!
in full

From: Phil Jones

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
__________________
Usually just thinking out loud
whiterain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2009, 07:52 PM   #60
gripit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

more...

Quote:

HOW TEMPERATURE CHARTS AT HADLEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED TO MAKE SURE THEY AGREE WITH THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD BEING WARMER THAN THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD – FROM DEEP COOL

At 14:10 15/01/2007, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Phil,
The attached piece is very good, impressive in the detail you’ve been able to dig up on this. Won’t pass this along. [No idea what the mysterious "this" is - Richard]
A couple minor comments:
1. I understand the point of the 50 year smoothing, but I think it would still be very useful to show were the most recent decade is on this scale. a lot of the recent warming is washed out by the padding at the end. People will look at this and say “see medieval peak was warmer than present”. but that doesn’t follow because so much of the warmning has been over past two decades.
2. I would not reference Wegman report as if it is a publication, i.e. a legitimate piece of scientific literature. Its a piece of something else! It should be cited in such a way as to indicate it is not a formal publication, wasn’t peer-reviewed, i.e. could be references as a “criticism commissoned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon). [ad hominen - tut tut Mr Mann]
3. I think that Stefan/Gavin were hoping to do something on RC sooner than the timeline you mention. What do you think about this? Do you want to forward the message to them and tell them the timeline you have in mind?
talk to you later,
mike
p.s. thanks very much for the ‘nomination’ , but you flatter me. I think that someone
farther along in their career such as Keith is more deserving at this time.

Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Thanks.
On 1) Putting the last few years in zooms the CET curve much higher. Tim took out the last few years. I need to make this clearer in the caption. Padding is an issue with a 50-year smoother.
2) I agree Wegman isn’t a formal publication. This was the highest profile example I could come up to show abuse of the curve. if you know of any others then let me know.
Even Tom Crowley shouldn’t have used it. There is a belief in the UK, that a curve of UK/CET past temperatures (by summer and winter) exists. It doesn’t, but the winter curve from Lamb is probably a lot better than the summer one.

I’ll let you know on time-frame when I hear from a few more I’ve sent the piece to.
Cheers
Phil
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/1...ed/#more-12937
gripit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
climate change is dead, un emails

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.