[SKRIVA] Re: OT: Re: Climategate 2.0
- From: Mikke Schirén <mikkeschiren@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: skriva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:56:48 +0100
Som sagt är et lätt att klippa och klistra och få till skumma saker, några
av citaten förklaras på
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplainedoch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails
Tilläggas kan att det hittills har gjorts sex undersökningar (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports)
av det som kommit fram i den så kallade Climategaten, ingen av dem har
kunnat visa på att något fel har begåtts.
För dem som vill sätta in sig in det hela lite mer rekommenderas
http://www.realclimate.org/
Några av sammanhangen som citaten som Ahrvid klistrade in kommer ifrån:
"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate
the uncertainty and be honest."
Sammanhang:
"Thorne's email repeatedly criticises the then-current draft of a report
for the US Climate
Change<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change>Science
Programme (CCSP, now the Global Change Research Program) for
over-simplifying or even dismissing the uncertainty about temperature rises
in the atmosphere. This reflects badly on the authors, but also
demonstrates that there are climate scientists who are critical of ignoring
contradictory evidence and are not afraid to speak their minds. As urged by
Thorne, the final report said: "The new evidence in this Report -
model-to-model consistency of amplification results, the large
uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends, and independent
physical evidence supporting substantial tropospheric warming (such as the
increasing height of the tropopause) - favors the second explanation.
However, the large observational uncertainties that currently exist make it
difficult to determine whether or not models still have significant errors.
Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties."
"Basic problem is that all models are wrong ? not got enough middle and low
level clouds."
Sammanhang:
"This is a discussion that referred to climate models of the late 1990s
vintage. These issues were well-known and they have improved in more recent
modelling. This related to model differences in development of a
multi-model average for the future. The work was not published in the
peer-reviewed literature. "
"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They?ll kill us probably."
Sammanhang:
Wils' email is part of an exchange about whether and how to respond to
climate sceptic criticisms. It appears to be a point made for more for
rhetorical effect than anything else. As one contributor on the blog Quark
Soup by David Appell put
it<http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/11/sorting-through-stolen-uae-emails.html>:
"Well, at least they considered it as an option."
"Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive... there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC"
Sammanhang:
Wigley is referring to a graph on the Real Climate blog by climate
scientist Gavin Schmidt. On Wednesday Schmidt responded, again on the
blog<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/comment-page-2/#comments>,
saying he "disagreed (and disagree) with Wigley", and replied at the time
to say so. The general allegation about dishonest presentations is
uncomfortable, but these are often scientifically difficult judgements, and
are being argued out.
-----
SKRIVA - sf, fantasy och skräck * Äldsta svenska skrivarlistan
grundad 1997 * Info http://www.skriva.bravewriting.com eller skriva-
request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx för listkommandon (ex subject: subscribe).
Other related posts:
