How to get the damaging leaked University of East Anglia CRU filesabout AGW

[jmfbahciv]

Hey, this is working out better than I expected:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/obama-speech-copenhagen

I won't get to the library to read that today.

What are the chances of snow in Mexico City in December?

What's the attitude? ;-) Fortunately, it snowed in D.C.

/BAH

 

[JosephKK]

Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.

CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...

Regards,
Martin Brown

Let me ask you this, who is providing traceability on the data and who isnot.
If that does not help you sort things, then what is the basis of your position?

 

[JosephKK]

Not if sufficiently indoctrinated.



Copenhagen will not fail, because it is a public show to bring carbon taxes to the masses.

Speaking from a few days upline, it is failing. The proposed treaty thoroughly incensed many
other nations, it was way too favorable US and EU and way to punitive to others with huge
rejection by India and China.

 

[JosephKK]

Insolation at Earth's surface in theArctic and Antarctic year-round is
generally around 30-40% of that at the equator - I would notcall that
minute.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

If you cannot do geometry let alone physics any better than that you deserve
all the disregard you can possibly get.

 

[JosephKK]

Agreed, it's amusing that the deniers need to childishly posture their words
to try and give them some emphasis:

"How to get the ***damaging*** ***leaked**** University of East AngliaCRU
files about AGW"

Amusing, since the university acts far more embarrassed than you do.

 

[JosephKK]

Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.

CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...

Regards,
Martin Brown

Really? So please demonstrate what part of the presentation is false.
Bring it on, point by point.

 

[JosephKK]

If someone says something _new_ I'll look at it.

If someone says the same nonsense I've heard 400,000 times before,
i.e., creationism "science," then why bother?

There are so many similarities between the evolution deniers and the
AGW deniers and the Hawaiian birth certificate deniers and the
Holocaust deniers and the equality of races deniers and . . . well
its easy to lump all the wing a ding dingers together under the
umbrella term "today's Republican."


Bret Cahill

And you seem to be a typical product of American schools today, can't think
or find your way out of a wet paper bag. Warmingism should be discarded
just like creationism.
Fantasy thinking is the hallmark of the left extreme more than the right.

 

[JosephKK]

A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
base. The fallout is already here.

Some of the GOP base are already believing that all scientists are
evil. These are not the usual false flag posts either.

Just as fundies go around shooting "abortionists" maybe someday this
will get so bad that AGW deniers in the base will soon be shooting
scientists and mathematicians.


Bret Cahill

Poxie hell, you are a really drugged up nutter.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

If you cannot do geometry let alone physics any better than that you deserve
all the disregard you can possibly get.

Ignoring the effects of clouds, but including the extinction (the
effect of "airmass") the horizontal ground will get 6-7 kWh/m² during
a 24 h day.

In the middle of the summer, at 60 to 90 degree latitudes, the surface
will receive 7-8 kWh/m² each day.

This may sound surprising for those not living in high latitudes. In
the middle of summer at the pole, the Sun is constantly at 23.5
degrees and the projection sin(23.5)=0.4 so 40 % compared to the
situation when the Sun is in zenith. However, this continues for 24
hours each day. On the equator, the nearly zenith situation only
occurs for a few hours, thus the radiation received during a day is
similar.

On the pole, the Sun is 6 month below the horizon, so the annual
radiation is below half of the equator values. However, the Sun is
quite high for 3-4 month each summer, so the annual average is
something like 30 % of the equatorial values.

Different cloud levels complicate the situation further.

While fresh white snow is reflecting the light quite effectively, old
dirty uneven ice is not that effective.

For a calm water surface, I have not been able to find, how much of
the light is reflected back to space and how much is refracted into
water (and ultimately absorbed into water), when the Sun is below 23
degrees. Anyone ?

The real question, is the reflected and then absorbed part of the
radiation significant compared to the heat carried by ocean currents
into the Arctic sea.

 

[JosephKK]

Obama was insulted in front of the world by Wen Jiabao, Hugo Chavez,
Fidel Castro (by remote control), Dmitry Medvedev, Thomas Negints,
Andreas Carlgren, Lumumba Di-Aping, and Greenpeace U.S. Executive
Director Phil Radford. At least.

I wonder what the O-team has in mind for Plan B. The make-nice thing
isn't going so well.

John

We recoil at this unfortunate slip of the keyboard Comrade John-ski--
things are going /very/ well indeed.

Have you not heard of our glorious victory in Afghanistan, which our
Commander in Chief has declared even 18 months in advance? Has our
new leader not simultaneously restrained Iran's nuclear ambitions and
made peace through understanding with the Taliban?

Just one year ago did not operatives of the wily last-President nearly
implode the evil capitalist state by burying it in failed mortgages?
Today, total foreclosures being a quarter higher[1] is producing
fantastic profits at the same institutions. Through the magic of
green, renewable unicorns, banks can now carry failed loans at full
value, assuring permanent prosperity for all.[2] Long live the
jobless recovery!

Transparent hope and change--is there nothing it cannot accomplish?

Why now our ever-vigilant ever-glorious Senate has even forged a
fabulous new wealthshare bill to guarantee that insurance companies
can profit from every single American--if necessary, at taxpayer
expense--or throw them all in jail.

Everyone approves of these 2,700+ pages of pure love which no one has
read. And surely $2.5 trillion is a small price to pay to insure the
net 1.8 million additional insured under this bill? [3]

And what third-world dictator could fail to envy, or hope to thwart
democracy as effectively, concocting edicts in secrecy, then passing
them with blitzkrieg in the dead of night? Can you not feel the
openness, the inclusiveness, the 5 nanoseconds' welcoming?

Ah yes, things are going very well indeed.


Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-10-23-foreclosures-interactive_N.htm
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121302442.html
The Coming Debt Panic. 12/14/09 "It's time to stop worrying about the
deficit -- and start panicking about the debt."

[3] estimate of the Actuary, http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/
(http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/
S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf)
Estimated effect on insurance by 2019, numbers in millions of
Americans

(view table in fixed font)
Coverage current law Reid bill difference
-------- ----------- --------- ----------
Medicare 60.5 60.5 0

Medicaid
& CHIP 63.5 83.6 20.1 million

Employer-
sponsored
insurance 165.9 160.7 -5.2

Individual
coverage 25.7 45.9 20.2

Uninsured 56.9 23.6 -33.3
----- ----- -----
TOTALS 372.5 374.3 1.8

NET ADDITIONAL INSURED -------------------^^^

Yep. And in the same report, nearly a trillion additional in deficits.
Not to mention a mythical half a trillion in Medicare savings.
Least of all the numbers do not add up correctly, better make that 2 trillion.
From page 21 of 34 of:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf

=8-(

 

[JosephKK]

Ignoring the effects of clouds, but including the extinction (the
effect of "airmass") the horizontal ground will get 6-7 kWh/m² during
a 24 h day.

In the middle of the summer, at 60 to 90 degree latitudes, the surface
will receive 7-8 kWh/m² each day.

This may sound surprising for those not living in high latitudes. In
the middle of summer at the pole, the Sun is constantly at 23.5
degrees and the projection sin(23.5)=0.4 so 40 % compared to the
situation when the Sun is in zenith. However, this continues for 24
hours each day. On the equator, the nearly zenith situation only
occurs for a few hours, thus the radiation received during a day is
similar.

On the pole, the Sun is 6 month below the horizon, so the annual
radiation is below half of the equator values. However, the Sun is
quite high for 3-4 month each summer, so the annual average is
something like 30 % of the equatorial values.

Naw, only about 3 months below the horizon, plus you have midnight
sun to correct for also.

Different cloud levels complicate the situation further.

While fresh white snow is reflecting the light quite effectively, old
dirty uneven ice is not that effective.

For a calm water surface, I have not been able to find, how much of
the light is reflected back to space and how much is refracted into
water (and ultimately absorbed into water), when the Sun is below 23
degrees. Anyone ?

Have you tried Snell's law? Of course when waves are added it all goes
strange.

The real question, is the reflected and then absorbed part of the
radiation significant compared to the heat carried by ocean currents
into the Arctic sea.

Your geometry is no better and you are using the numbers from above the
atmosphere and reporting as if it were ground intensity (properly around
1 kW/(m*m)).

 

[JosephKK]

They're even blaming Bush for Osama^H^H^H^Hbama's escalation in
Vietnam^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAfghanistan.

I thought he won by promising to get us out of there? Not that there is
ANY promise he's kept.

Thanks,
Rich

But he did promise higher taxes for successful people. He is delivering
on that.

 

[JosephKK]

===================================
The discussion about the AGW being true or false is tiring.

It is clear to any thinking person with any scientific background that
AGW has NOT been proven to the point where it warrants major changes
to our lifestyles.

So lets move to the next level of this chess game.

What is the game behind the game?

WHY are the politicians shoving AGW propaganda down our throats?

Is it simply an excuse to levy more taxes?

Or is something else going on? Do they know that we are really
about to run out of oil and they are trying to wean us from oil before
it runs out but don't want to panic us?

Is it a ploy to get us to accept nuclear energy with open arms?

I have this fear that when truth wins out in the end and AGW is
eventually exposed as false that all of science will be badly
discredited. It will be Y2K and cold fussion on a bigger scale.

What is the game behind the game?

Mark

It seems to be discrediting science itself. Then left without any
means to detect falsehood, the sheeple will be more controllable.
Can you say 1984?

 

[JosephKK]

He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.


You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.

My point here was that his paranoid arguments about AGW science are
deliberately misleading and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
instincts of other righttards. He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.

Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.

Regards,
Martin Brown

So you did not view any of the videos and are dissing on command of your
controllers? I can blast Algore directly from my own ability.

 

[JosephKK]

SPPI and Monckton are well know denialist bedfellows. His presentation
in March to the House Senate committee was funny for all the wrong
reasons. eg.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/viscount_monckton_denialist_dujour/

He is a great showman. Though his command of the facts is somewhat
lacking - either that or he has absolutely no personal integrity. A fair
proportion of what he says is easily proved wrong by fact checking.

Really? Maybe it is your command of fact and fact testing that is lacking.

It is odd that the US senators cannot distinguish fact from fiction. The
UK Science & Technology Select Committee are much more on the ball and
considerably less partisan in their approach. They also talk to real
experts rather than pretend ones from ultraright wing think tanks.

Politicians knowing a fact that bites them in the face? Never happen.
Politician missing a chance to tax? Never happen.
There never was any science to it, it was/is always politics, nothing else.
I refer you to attempted suppression of the middle ages warm period and
attempted suppression of the "the little ice age" by AGWists.

 

[Martin Brown]

So you did not view any of the videos and are dissing on command of your
controllers? I can blast Algore directly from my own ability.

Please retract that claim.

BTW your memory is failing. I last stated my position on this on s.e.d
in a reply to you about 18 months ago - Google groups is handy:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/19d16752dad82548?hl=en&dmode=source


I am on record from the release of Al Gores film saying that I did *not*
think it appropriate or helpful to show it in UK schools and that I
think he is a hypocrite. My position is clear enough. eg.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sc...&lnk=gst&q=Gore+Martin+Brown#4e0c812701c65810

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

So you did not view any of the videos and are dissing on command of your
controllers? I can blast Algore directly from my own ability.

Please retract that claim.

BTW your memory is failing. I last stated my position on this on s.e.d
in a reply to you about 18 months ago - Google groups is handy:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/19d16752dad82548?hl=en&dmode=source


I am on record from the release of Al Gores film saying that I did *not*
think it appropriate or helpful to show it in UK schools and that I
think he is a hypocrite. My position is clear enough. eg.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sc...&lnk=gst&q=Gore+Martin+Brown#4e0c812701c65810

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Paul Keinanen]

Naw, only about 3 months below the horizon, plus you have midnight
sun to correct for also.

Where did you get those three months from ?

In the most Northern parts of Finland at 70N, the sun sets on Nov 24th
and rises again on Jan 17th, which is nearly two months.

On the pole, the sun is below the horizon for 179 days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night
The twilight is not significant for the melting process .

Have you tried Snell's law? Of course when waves are added it all goes
strange.

Snell´s law only describe the reflection and refraction angles.

It appears that the reflectance can be calculated from the Fresnel
equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations


One calculator at
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/optics/reflec_refrac and a diagram
of the air/water boundary is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_reflectivity.jpg
The angles are measured from the normal (vertical in this case) and
for unpolarized sunlight, the reflectance is the average of the two
polarization reflectance Rs and Rp.

Looking at the diagram and assuming calm water at the North pole, the
sun is in the middle of summer 23.5 degrees above the horizon and only
10 % of the sun energy is reflected directly and 90 % is refracted
into water and finally absorbed. However in April/May and September,
the sun is less than 6.5 degrees above the horizon and more than 50 %
of the rays are reflected.

Between the Arctic circle and the pole, in the summer during the day,
the refraction into water is strong, but during the midnight sun
hours, the sun is so low that most of the rays are reflected, thus,
only the hours around noon will effectively warm the water.

Your geometry is no better and you are using the numbers from above the
atmosphere and reporting as if it were ground intensity (properly around
1 kW/(m*m)).

The daily energy levels that I used, are at the surface of the earth
for horizontal surfaces. You might get 1 kW/m² on the equator at noon,
but at other times and other locations, the power levels are
significantly less due to geometry and extinction losses.

Without the atmosphere losses, the summer time daily energy levels are
much higher at high latitudes than on the equator.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

The Dems *want* their health plan to be bad and expensive. They will
blame all the people they have just bought off (drug companies,
insurance companies, doctors, states) and then move in to fix the
problem.

The pre-existing-conditions thing will cause chaos. They won't enforce
the mandatory insurance thing, so the insurance companies will be
crushed by people who wait until they are really sick before they sign
up.

I don't see how that is going to work. Why wouldn't everyone who is
*really* sick sign up for the very best insurance out there? Hmm..
maybe I do see what will happen.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

Insolation at Earth's surface in theArctic and Antarctic year-round is
generally around 30-40% of that at the equator - I would notcall that
minute.

When the solar rays hit the ice or water surface, part of the power is
reflected directly back to space, while part is refracted into the ice
or water and finally absorbed.

If I understand correctly, the reflected part is determined by the
reflection coefficient according to the Fresnel equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations

The reflective constant depends of the refractive index and the angle,
at which the rays hit the surface.

The refractive index for water is 1.333, while for ice, 1.31 seems to
be listed. Thus, when comparing the reflective coefficient and hence
the transmission coefficient into ice/water for a flat ice surface and
a calm water surface, the amount of power refracted into ice/water is
practically the same.

Thus, from the power balance point of view, what difference does it
make, if the Arctic ice melts and there are open waters a few months
each year ?

While fresh clean white snow will reflect most of the power back to
space, in the arid polar desert, how often are there fresh snow ?

How long will the fresh snow remain white and clean, when the
contamination from industry etc. will increase the absorbtion,
speeding up the melting of the snow and ice ?