Diagram 20 on page 21 was the graphic I mentioned.
Glad to see the memory recall wasn't that bad.
Now downloaded and saved for posterity.
I remember posting my regrets about the damage certain countries I named had done to their infrastructure by removing most of their forests.
I felt sorry for the people living there who had no control over their pending disasters any more than we who are suffering the economic crisis are the ones deserving the pain.
That was in 2004. Several months (IIRC) before the earthquake struck all the countries I mentioned at the end of the year. You could say the earth repays those who are destroying it by destroying them. It would explain World Wars 1 and 2 the cold war and the mess the USA has been in for the last half century.
I wonder here the next blow will fall before the Last Trump. It's got to be something to do with transport if it is Britain. Anyone want to bet?
It can't be clothing, it has been agriculture on and off pretty regularly for the way we treat animals of course. Maybe there is more of that looming?
The only other thing is loose morals. A new plague like AIDS, perhaps?
I should cover myself and bet on all three by the end of the year.
It isn't an exception to anything.
No there isn't. One is a statement of generality, one is a a statement of something particular.
This wasn't a 'last minute update'; something like this will have been discussed internally for months, doubtless retuning the models to try and get rid of it, if nothing else. These things aren't done by office juniors clearing their desks for Christmas.
Not when they have bad news to bury. This amounts to them eating their own faeces.
I give you...Climategate, an episode that made my skin crawl.
You might like to see this video, by a professor who believes that believes that CO2 causes significant global warming:
A steady flow of Government funds might have something to do with having an agenda, hiding the decline, employing Mike's Trick, resisting FOI requests, withholding data, and all the rest.
What you really mean is the chinese, indians, americans etc
"we" is a very small percentage of the population
Ah but without a Winston Smith one ends up site like the HMR&C one where a search can return information that is years old, out of date and superceeded but with very little hint that a given result is, effectively, bollocks.
Removing completely is not good but "old" documents need to be clearly identified as such.
True. Apple, IME, seems to do a reasonable job of that. Although of course you wouldn't necessarily know that.
This is very basic logic. When disproving a postulate, it is sufficient to find an exception to it.
If you can't see that the assertion (postulate) ...
"It's the agency executives' desire to feed the news media with alarmist and politically-motivated "stories" that's the problem"
... is contradicted by (exception) ...
"On Christmas Eve, the Met's temperature prediction for the UK was quietly revised downwards, and only merited a press release this week after physics blog Tallbloke's Talkshop noticed the change."
... then I don't think there's much point in discussing this further.
been discussed internally for months, doubtless
These are assertions arising from your own Anti Anthropogenic Global Warming stance.
I didn't say that they were.
Again, these are assertions arising from your own Anti Anthropogenic Global Warming stance.
I note that, unfortunately not in this post, but that in other recent posts you are now doing so, and that instantly the debate becomes more reasonable.
that CO2 causes significant global
science, and there was no excuse for it. But the thing that really matters is what is actually happening with the climate, and, as linked in the other thread, Prof Muller has shown since that AGW is real and is happening.
agenda, hiding the decline,
Or it might not. It might just be a piece of bad science, and scientists closing ranks. I see no particular need to invoke conspiracy theory more widely than with the particular handful of scientists involved.
read science.
Downloaded to be read at leisure, thanks very much!
Well, tell me when agency executives fed the news media with alarmist and politically-motivated "stories" on the eve of the major holiday period.
They haven't, because doing something like that is known as burying bad news.
The downward forecast by the Met Office was bad news (for them).
I'm getting the picture that you don't have any grasp of the nature of this. The Met Office has been spreading alarmist stories for more than a decade, and to find themselves in the position of downgrading the basis of these won't have happened overnight; running the models will have taken months, plus the internal debate that must have gone on.
You seem to think that they ran the model on the morning of Christmas Eve, and then published the result.
You implied it was just another routine event.
Keep your fingers in your ears and keep chanting la-la-la-la.
Handful? These were the major players!
then published the result.
I doubt if it takes long to run the model. Its probably not like weather forecasting where millions of calculations have to be done many times with different starting data.
Of course if they published the model we would know.
Just how many calculations do you think it would take? Thousands? Hundreds? Tens?
Probably between 0.001% and 1% of what's needed to do a weather forecast. I can't see why it would take more.
If you look around there are simple formulae banded about which are supposed to predict what rise in temp a rise in CO2 produces and likewise for many of the other processes they *may* take into account.
Of course the fudge factors are unpublished so there is no real way for us to know if it can be done in Excel or if it needs a bit of C.
one, if AGW is what you mean. The model is unbelievably simplistic.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.