Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

[yakbladder]

It is irrelevant what Obama's science advisor thinks. The studies should be published and peer reviewed, not kept out of publication by some cabal who has now been exposed. To top if off, when guys publish their studies anywhere they can, they're accused of publishing stuff that's not peer reviewed. Nice how that works.

Actually it is valid as he is one of the scientists whose emails were leaked.

It really looks bad, no matter how you slice and dice it.

I'm not saying that some things there don't look bad. What I am saying is that you're pretty much stating that because they may have done something (again, neither you nor I has read all of the emails..at least I presume you haven't?) that must mean that what they believe as scientists is completely incorrect.

So, again, going back to my earlier post where does that leave us? If a new team of scientists suddenly came out and said "Hey, we have proof that man-made global climate change is real" you don't think, because you already believe it isn't real, that you wouldn't have some trepidation and believe that possibly these new scientists invented their data?

It's a no-win scenario. And I would hope that all of us here are intelligent enough to realize that anything pulled out of context can look bad.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually it is valid as he is one of the scientists whose emails were leaked.





I'm not saying that some things there don't look bad. What I am saying is that you're pretty much stating that because they may have done something (again, neither you nor I has read all of the emails..at least I presume you haven't?) that must mean that what they believe as scientists is completely incorrect.

So, again, going back to my earlier post where does that leave us? If a new team of scientists suddenly came out and said "Hey, we have proof that man-made global climate change is real" you don't think, because you already believe it isn't real, that you wouldn't have some trepidation and believe that possibly these new scientists invented their data?

It's a no-win scenario. And I would hope that all of us here are intelligent enough to realize that anything pulled out of context can look bad.

I think that when presented with a solid scientific argument, I believe in the science. Like CFCs depleting the ozone in the atmosphere.

When it comes to global warming, I see nothing but evidence that climate changes and that it's certainly warmer now than 10,000 years ago. I have no reason to doubt it. The correlation between mathematical models and CO2 and "extra" warming caused by man? Not even close to being convinced.

As to whether I'd be skeptical of scientific claims (in general)? Of course. Not because I don't believe in the science, but because I'm not doing the verification of the data and results directly and we can see that these things can be a scam.

Plus it is only through skepticism that theories are made to stand up to scrutiny in the light of day.

 

[barfo]

I think that when presented with a solid scientific argument, I believe in the science. Like CFCs depleting the ozone in the atmosphere.

When it comes to global warming, I see nothing but evidence that climate changes and that it's certainly warmer now than 10,000 years ago. I have no reason to doubt it. The correlation between mathematical models and CO2 and "extra" warming caused by man? Not even close to being convinced.

As to whether I'd be skeptical of scientific claims (in general)? Of course. Not because I don't believe in the science, but because I'm not doing the verification of the data and results directly and we can see that these things can be a scam.

Plus it is only through skepticism that theories are made to stand up to scrutiny in the light of day.

On that note, I'd like to introduce the following article I ran across today, which I think gives an even-handed, readable yet informed overview of the email stuff and the context.

here.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

On that note, I'd like to introduce the following article I ran across today, which I think gives an even-handed, readable yet informed overview of the email stuff and the context.

here.

barfo

I have two points.

1) It's nice to see they've figured out how to try to spin their way out of this. I am not buying it.
2) Ironic that when a geologist is a skeptic, he doesn't have the requisite training, experience, or expertise to have a valid opinion.

The bottom line is that Man Made Global Warming is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory and not a law.

 

[PapaG]

It's all falling apart now. I give the British press major props for reporting on this. Thus far in the US, a few articles, and Dems like Boxer wanting the "hacker" to be prosecuted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.
The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

 

[barfo]

I have two points.

1) It's nice to see they've figured out how to try to spin their way out of this. I am not buying it.
2) Ironic that when a geologist is a skeptic, he doesn't have the requisite training, experience, or expertise to have a valid opinion.

1) I didn't expect you to buy it. Your mind is made up. All climate scientists are cheaters and liars and the science is bunk. I get that.
2) I didn't post the article for the man's opinion about climate science, I posted it for his opinions about the email business and the context thereof. As I said.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

1) I didn't expect you to buy it. Your mind is made up. All climate scientists are cheaters and liars and the science is bunk. I get that.
2) I didn't post the article for the man's opinion about climate science, I posted it for his opinions about the email business and the context thereof. As I said.

barfo

My mind isn't made up. If there's actual compelling evidence that there's man made global warming, I'd be all over it like white on rice. Like I said, it's a hypothesis without compelling proof and I'll add that there's a religious fervour to trying to wish it were true.

The guy wrote a lot of stuff about how incredible these emails are. Incredible in the sense of the scientists being not credible.

 

[barfo]

Like I said, it's a hypothesis without compelling proof and I'll add that there's a religious fervour to trying to wish it were true.

Funny, it looks that way on the other side to me also. Lots of people who don't know shit about the subject insisting that the experts are wrong and they are right. Very much a faith-based, or at least an irrationality-based, approach.

I'm not saying one side is more that way than the other, or that all supporters of one side or the other are blind believers. There is a continuum on both sides.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this debate don't have the scientific chops to understand the subject matter. So how do they decide what to believe? They decide based on their preconceptions.

In the end, science will (if we don't burn all the scientists at the stake first) figure out what's true and what isn't. That's my belief.

barfo

 

[barfo]

My mind isn't made up. If there's actual compelling evidence that there's man made global warming, I'd be all over it like white on rice.

What would you consider "actual compelling evidence"? Serious question. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

What would you consider "actual compelling evidence"? Serious question. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

barfo

For me, it would take data that showed a strong correlation between a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global temperatures. If such data even exists....

Also, I would have to see the polar ice caps and all glaciers completely melt and the sea level rise 8 feet.

Finally, I would have to see the global temperature rise to a point that all agricultural crops fail and what's left of humanity be destroyed by super cyclone after super cyclone.

Then, I would have little recourse but to concede that CO2 may play some small role in global warming.

 

[PapaG]

There is an 800-lb. gorilla that entered the room 10 days ago, and it's funny to watch the Warmers deny that it exists.

 

[barfo]

There is an 800-lb. gorilla that entered the room 10 days ago, and it's funny to watch the Warmers deny that it exists.

I haven't seen anyone deny it here, have you? There are some questions about exactly what kind of a monkey it really is, though.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I haven't seen anyone deny it here, have you? There are some questions about exactly what kind of a monkey it really is, though.

barfo

It's a lying monkey. Continue to toe the line of the liars, though. It's adds to your credibility.

From Michael Mann

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations

.

Falsifying data, using "tricks", hiding/destroying data ... this isn't science. This is a political movement. Now, back to Tiger Woods and his harem!

 

[PapaG]

Consider this:

The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

When almost half of a group giving the data for a summit with worldwide implications are proven liars, why even use the data at the summit?

 

[PapaG]

Lots of cabbage to be made by doctoring data that your funders want to see. 13.7 million Euros of public money for falsified data. Bernie Madoff Jr.?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...es-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13.7 million in research grants

The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding "gravy train" for scientists conducting research into the area.

The grants were awarded following successful applications made by Professor Phil Jones, who headed up the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

The money is largely for research into the effects of global warming and is in addition to the main government education grant awarded to the university.

Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university's computer server and published on the internet.

Climate change sceptics point to an email written by one scientist in November 1999 as evidence of manipulation of the figures to mask falling global temperatures.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," the email said.

In another email, the death of a leading climate change sceptic is described as "cheering news".

The emails are being used by climate change sceptics to allege that attempts were made to manipulate data to "prove" the existence of man-made climate change.

They also allegedly point to efforts to block Freedom of Information requests by sceptics. Allegations that data was altered and FOI requests blocked have been vigorously denied.

The spreadsheet listing all successful grant applications made by Professor Jones was part of the batch of leaked documents. It shows Professor Jones, along with other academics at the university, received more than 50 separate grants with a value of £13.7 million from a number of

 

[barfo]

Lots of cabbage to be made by doctoring data that your funders want to see. 13.7 million Euros of public money for falsified data. Bernie Madoff Jr.?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...es-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html

I think you are on a little bit of a witch hunt here. 13.7 million over 20 years isn't all that much. And realize that money mostly doesn't go into his pocket - the university takes a cut, the department takes a cut, and he pays salaries for assistants and buys equipment, travel expenses, publication expenses, etc.

And while it could be true that he faked data for each and every one of those grants and/or embezzled the money, you don't have any evidence that he did.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Falsifying data, using "tricks", hiding/destroying data ... this isn't science. This is a political movement. Now, back to Tiger Woods and his harem!

When you show me that you understand what he was even saying in that quote, then I'll take your conclusions seriously. What's the Osborn and Briffa 06 sensitivity test, for instance?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What would you consider "actual compelling evidence"? Serious question. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

barfo

For me, it would take data that showed a strong correlation between a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and a rise in global temperatures. If such data even exists....

Also, I would have to see the polar ice caps and all glaciers completely melt and the sea level rise 8 feet.

Finally, I would have to see the global temperature rise to a point that all agricultural crops fail and what's left of humanity be destroyed by super cyclone after super cyclone.

Then, I would have little recourse but to concede that CO2 may play some small role in global warming.

bluefrog is basically right, though it'd take more than just correlating some data with some effect. That the data proves there's a causal relationship is in doubt - you can map population vs. temperature and get a similar graph that looks like a correlation, or even world GDP vs. temperature.

But more to the point:

http://www.ausetute.com.au/cfcozone.html

This WWW page, and many like it, explain that there's a chemical reaction that goes on with CFCs and ozone that is guaranteed to happen. There's no argument based upon observed data, observations, hypotheses, consensus, etc. Nothing needs to be peer reviewed even. It's as basic a fact as 1+1 = 2. We also know how many gallons of CFCs were produced and consumed (let into the atmosphere) by man.

Show me something like that, which is definitive, and I'm a believer.

Denny Crane over and out.

 

[barfo]

This email business reminds me of when some politician gets caught taking bribes or having some brand of sex that he campaigns against. Those who already believe that everyone from that party are corrupt thinks their point of view has been indisputably proven true; those that don't assign the blame to the individual(s) rather than the entire group.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you are on a little bit of a witch hunt here. 13.7 million over 20 years isn't all that much. And realize that money mostly doesn't go into his pocket - the university takes a cut, the department takes a cut, and he pays salaries for assistants and buys equipment, travel expenses, publication expenses, etc.

And while it could be true that he faked data for each and every one of those grants and/or embezzled the money, you don't have any evidence that he did.

barfo

You are missing the point.

Money isn't everything. Guys like Corzine or the Kennedys have all the money they need. They want POWER. And that's what the scientists have and get. More power by spending $1.xM per year than I think you or I have, for example. Hell, the ability to fool policy makers into doing their bidding is power.

 

[barfo]

This WWW page, and many like it, explain that there's a chemical reaction that goes on with CFCs and ozone that is guaranteed to happen. There's no argument based upon observed data, observations, hypotheses, consensus, etc. Nothing needs to be peer reviewed even. It's as basic a fact as 1+1 = 2. We also know how many gallons of CFCs were produced and consumed (let into the atmosphere) by man.

Show me something like that, which is definitive, and I'm a believer.

Denny Crane over and out.

Funny thing is, there were plenty of ozone deniers, too.

All you are saying is that you believe cfcs are bad and you don't believe co2 is bad.

That web page doesn't prove anything about CFCs. If I was a denier, I'd say something stupid like "common sense will tell you that the troposphere is so large, and the chlorine atoms and ozone molecules are so tiny and relatively few, and N2 and O2 so much more numerous, that they essentially never come in contact with each other, so that reaction, which might happen in a LAB, doesn't happen in the atmosphere." And then when you presented data that in fact the number and velocity of the molecules is sufficient to run into each other, I'd change the subject and make some other "common sense" claim. Being a denier is easy, because you don't actually have to learn the science. You just have to believe it is wrong.

But you aren't a denier about CFCs, and neither am I, so we don't have to go there. I'm just saying there are plenty of web pages that "prove" CO2 warming just as well as that web page "proves" ozone hole destruction. The actual details of proving that CFCs are a problem are rather more complex than writing down the chemical reactions.

barfo

 

[barfo]

You are missing the point.

Money isn't everything. Guys like Corzine or the Kennedys have all the money they need. They want POWER. And that's what the scientists have and get. More power by spending $1.xM per year than I think you or I have, for example. Hell, the ability to fool policy makers into doing their bidding is power.

Sure, power, even at S2 or the U. of East Anglia, corrupts.

But I don't see how I'm missing the point when PapaG posted about the money, and I responded about the money, and now you say it isn't about the money.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure, power, even at S2 or the U. of East Anglia, corrupts.

But I don't see how I'm missing the point when PapaG posted about the money, and I responded about the money, and now you say it isn't about the money.

barfo

It's about the money they get to spend. It translates to power.

 

[Denny Crane]

Funny thing is, there were plenty of ozone deniers, too.

All you are saying is that you believe cfcs are bad and you don't believe co2 is bad.

That web page doesn't prove anything about CFCs. If I was a denier, I'd say something stupid like "common sense will tell you that the troposphere is so large, and the chlorine atoms and ozone molecules are so tiny and relatively few, and N2 and O2 so much more numerous, that they essentially never come in contact with each other, so that reaction, which might happen in a LAB, doesn't happen in the atmosphere." And then when you presented data that in fact the number and velocity of the molecules is sufficient to run into each other, I'd change the subject and make some other "common sense" claim. Being a denier is easy, because you don't actually have to learn the science. You just have to believe it is wrong.

But you aren't a denier about CFCs, and neither am I, so we don't have to go there. I'm just saying there are plenty of web pages that "prove" CO2 warming just as well as that web page "proves" ozone hole destruction. The actual details of proving that CFCs are a problem are rather more complex than writing down the chemical reactions.

barfo

There are zero pages that prove CO2 warming, that's the thing.

As for CFCs, look at the formulas again and see how the free radical affects the reaction. Hell, I'll do it for you:

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=89

When chlorine and ozone react, they form the free radical chlorine oxide, which in turn becomes part of a chain reaction. As a result of that chain reaction, a single chlorine atom can remove as many as 100,000 molecules of ozone.

 

[barfo]

There are zero pages that prove CO2 warming, that's the thing.

Of course not. It's complicated.
Show me a page that proves CFC ozone hole depletion. Your first try was a failure.

As for CFCs, look at the formulas again and see how the free radical affects the reaction.

Why bother, when you never address the points I make?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course not. It's complicated.
Show me a page that proves CFC ozone hole depletion. Your first try was a failure.



Why bother, when you never address the points I make?

barfo

The free radical chain reaction addresses your point:

"common sense will tell you that the troposphere is so large, and the chlorine atoms and ozone molecules are so tiny and relatively few, and N2 and O2 so much more numerous, that they essentially never come in contact with each other, so that reaction, which might happen in a LAB, doesn't happen in the atmosphere."

 

[barfo]

The free radical chain reaction addresses your point:

"common sense will tell you that the troposphere is so large, and the chlorine atoms and ozone molecules are so tiny and relatively few, and N2 and O2 so much more numerous, that they essentially never come in contact with each other, so that reaction, which might happen in a LAB, doesn't happen in the atmosphere."

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. You have to have a significant collision cross-section to have the reaction proceed at all, and you (your web page) haven't shown that there is.

If the first step of the chain reaction never happens, the rest of the chain reaction never happens either.
It's vaguely analogous to a nuclear chain reaction. If you don't have critical mass, no explosion. Show me you have critical mass.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. You have to have a significant collision cross-section to have the reaction proceed at all, and you (your web page) haven't shown that there is.

If the first step of the chain reaction never happens, the rest of the chain reaction never happens either.

barfo

The chain reaction doesn't consume ALL of the ozone for that reason, but it clearly does consume mass quantities at the poles.

Though you might want to consider both reading my posts before saying I don't respond to your points and figuring out what a big ozone hole at the north pole might mean for the ice caps there. The latter being entirely independent of any other factors.

 

[barfo]

The chain reaction doesn't consume ALL of the ozone for that reason, but it clearly does consume mass quantities at the poles.

It's only clear because you believe it does. You've presented no proof whatsoever.

Though you might want to consider both reading my posts before saying I don't respond to your points and figuring out what a big ozone hole at the north pole might mean for the ice caps there. The latter being entirely independent of any other factors.

Sorry, don't understand your point here. What does the effect of an ozone hole on an ice cap have to do with whether CFCs destroy ozone?

Let's try to stay on topic here: you are claiming that that web page PROVES that CFCs destroy the ozone layer.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't ask what the ozone hole has to do with CFCs, I asked how an ozone hole over the poles might affect the ice packs there. Nice try at deflection.

Again:

By the mid 1980s, scientists had become expert in measuring the concentration of chlorine-containing compounds in the stratosphere. Some monitored the compounds from the ground; others used balloons or aircraft. In 1986 and 1987, these scientists, including Susan Solomon and James Anderson, established that the unprecedented ozone loss over Antarctica involved atomic chlorine and chlorine oxide radicals.

At the same time, measurements in the lower atmosphere established that CFC levels had increased steadily and dramatically since the first recordings taken by Lovelock in 1970. The conclusion was clear: The prime sources of the ozone-devouring chlorine atoms over Antarctica were the CFCs and two other pollutants, the industrial solvents carbon tetrachloride and methylchloroform.

A satellite operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration appears to have removed any possible doubt about the role of CFCs. Data collected over the past three years by the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite revealed these compounds in the stratosphere. Moreover, the satellite has traced the worldwide accumulation of stratospheric fluorine gases, a direct breakdown product of CFCs. The quantitative balance of CFCs and its products eliminates the possibility that chlorine from volcanic eruptions or other natural sources created the ozone hole.