De nuevo con la estafa del cambio climático?

Compartir

Twittear Para quienes profesan el casi religioso culto de la promoción del cambio climático por efecto humano (digo religioso por que cuando se invocan datos en una discusión simplemente pasan al terreno de la fe y de las penas del infierno ecológico por no ser creyente) van los últimos correos filtrados desde una de las universidades y académicos que promueven el movimiento...
Climagate
Algunos extractos de los correo para quienes tengan el tiempo de concentración de un algoritmo de trading de alta frecuencia...
lo que realmente molesta ideológicamente de estos movimientos es que se enfocan en salvar el planeta, pero el hombre es parte integrante de este, de que manera pretenden evitar la influencia del ser humano en el medio ambiente, eliminándolo? no sería un enfoque más razonable el cuidar de la integridad, bienestar, prosperidad y salud del hombre y como consecuencia de esto el entorno sería cuidado en orden a mantener el soporte sustentable? es diferente salvar el planeta que salvar al ser humano, y si ponen atención en el mensaje de estos nuevos profetas, en ningún lado aparece en la ecuación de sustenatbilidad el hombre, salvo cuando se reduce sus influencia, es decir, desaparece.

/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out 
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10 
solar forcing

<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability 
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the 
"Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly 
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have 
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the 
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands 
we'll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.

<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural 
fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]

<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially 
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, 
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the 
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from 
the sun alone.

<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone 
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the 
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier 
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They 
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest 
that temperatures haven't increased at these levels.

<1788> Jones:

There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent 
extreme weather is due to global warming"] - at least not a climatologist.

<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the 
cost of damaged personal relationships

<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of 
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may 
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this 
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest 
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even 
real?

<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts - guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in 
the open.

<2095> Steig:

He's skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica -- he
thinks the "right" answer is more like our detrended results in the 
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with 
sulphates won't be quite as necessary.

<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics 
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is 
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some 
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface 
warming do this

<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however, 
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to 
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind 
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after 
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940 
cannot be explained in this way.

Imprimir artículo