ClimateGate and the Climatati

[wyly]

The Sun increases in both size and intensity every year.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218c.html

alot of info about the sun growing in 5 billion yrs from now nothing in the link about the sun growing every year...solar activity is down...come up with a link that shows otherwise...

[Riverwind]

a paper that never should have been published given it offered nothing within it to support the conclusion made.

You might have a point except that description applies to most papers produced by Mann yet that did not stop the IPCC from featuring them quite prominently. Of course, you might say that is just my opinion but that would be the point. It is only the in OPINION of Mann and Co that the paper should not have been published. That does mean it is true.

The bottom line is it does not make one shred of difference how much they believed the paper was wrong they had no business interfering with the editor/journal. By doing so they corrupted the peer review process and undermined its credibility. Ethically, it is no different than a lawyer blackmailing a judge who rules against his clients.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Goat Boy©]

that's absolutely false...research has ruled out any connection between the suns activity and recent warming, it's just the opposite...don't believe it go find a reputable link proving otherwise...

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

That took 3.5 seconds. Just an increase in solar energy alone. That doesn't even account for variations in the kinds of radiation arriving, variations in magnitude of said radiation, variations of the earth's atmosphere to reflect it.....

[Goat Boy©]

alot of info about the sun growing in 5 billion yrs from now nothing in the link about the sun growing every year...solar activity is down...come up with a link that shows otherwise...

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/093097sci-sun.html

WASHINGTON -- The Sun is getting hotter, adding heat to the global warming that has been linked to greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, said a study published on Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of data from satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

The increase is only a small fraction of the Sun's total heat, but over a century, it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming, said Dr. Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

Does your car not get hot when it sits out in the sun?

Edited November 27, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Shady]

that's absolutely false...research has ruled out any connection between the suns activity and recent warming, it's just the opposite...don't believe it go find a reputable link proving otherwise.

You're sbsolutely false.

Sun's Activity Cycle Linked to Earth Climate

When the sun's weather is most active, it can impact Earth’s climate in a way that is similar to El Niño and La Niña events, a new study suggests

True believer, you need to allow science a place in your life.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Really? Based on what? your gut feel? Cloud cover is not a constant and there is no reason to believe it is. Around the 1998 el nino there was an unexplained jump in cloud cover that persists today.

How much more cloud do you think 10% more cloud cover would be? Looking at this 10% woud be a huge increase.

Incidently, this data on albedo supports Roy Spencer's theorhttp://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=3&t=15419&qpid=486265y that recent changes in climate are driven by changes in cloud cover because an increase in cloud cover should lead to cooling which is what we have seen since 1998.

Why is Vegetation Type a First-Order Climate Forcing?

Cloud cover can also cause a warming depending on where it is because it will capture heat for longer.

Yes it is. But you keep missing my point. The video said that CO2 was responsible for the positive feedback that amplified the orbital forcings and starts/ends the ice ages. I am saying that is wrong. Ice albedo feedback filled that role. CO2 was a bit player that comes alone later in the process.

CO2 can cause positive feedback but its effect is mostly in warming. Earth warms, ice melts, co2 is released, earth warms more, more ice melts, more co2 is released, etc. This goes on until there is no more ice and the CO2 levels can go down again. I don't remember it saying that CO2 caused the start of Ice Ages, but I look at it again when I get home this computer sucks to much.

of potholer's about the ice age talks about the Ice albedo effect.

We do NOT have an open environment for debate. We have a situation where people who dissent from the IPCC party line are branded as cranks and deniers by scientists like Jones and Mann. But more importantly, we have a complacent media who refuses to report any views other than the IPCC sanctioned view. Look at the G&M coverage this week. A story a day about the latest alarmist science but not one mention of the emails and their potential significance. It is an environment that has given a small number scientists enormous power as gatekeepers of the "truth" - an environment that has led to the scientific corruption we see evident in those emails.

Scientists do have an open environment for debate there are plenty of people who disagree with the idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Who cares if the media isn't reporting it the media makes shit up all the time, like the bullshit stories about the world cooling no scientist verified those. You want to see dissenting view get a subscription to a peer reviewed journal.

Now if you think the average people should have an open environment well one we do we're on it right now and second what we say means squat to the scientists who's knowledge is in this field and have done actual experiments.

Edited November 27, 2009 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

You're sbsolutely false.

Sun's Activity Cycle Linked to Earth Climate

When the sun's weather is most active, it can impact Earth’s climate in a way that is similar to El Niño and La Niña events, a new study suggests

True believer, you need to allow science a place in your life.

lol, so sad you preach the science but you don't understand it...

current solar activity is low and temps are still going up, no one claimed solar activity isn't linked to our temp which should be obvious to even the scientifically challenged, it's just not linked to this warming... the link between solar activity and GW ended in the mid 70's...is it still linked to el nino's and la nina's? ya, look at the graph and you can see where it corresponds to the 98' uber el Nino which is added to the overall warming but is not related to solar activity...

[Riverwind]

10% woud be a huge increase.

10% is 10%. It is not more or less because of the earth is big. I have already given you one paper that shows that cloud albedo changed suddenly and it has a climatically significant effect. That should be enough to put an end to this point since the real data says cloud cover changes.

of potholer's about the ice age talks about the Ice albedo effect.

Fair enough but the first video did misrepresent the science by implying that CO2 was the only feedback operating and that increasing CO2 was likely to cause running awy warming today.

Scientists do have an open environment for debate there are plenty of people who disagree with the idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

And they are vilified and attacked by gatekeepers like Mann and Jones. Pielke has been complaining for years that the fix is in and that his research is being ignored/excluded from assessments like the IPCC because it does not support the political agenda. Since these emails have come out there have been other scientists speaking up and agreeing that the scientific debate has been stifled so I think your claim that there is an open environment cannot be supported.

Now if you think the average people should have an open environment well one we do we're on it right now and second what we say means squat to the scientists who's knowledge is in this field and have done actual experiments.

Climate science is not really a science because there are no experiments that can be done. Science consists entirely of data collection and analysis and the disagreements come down to opinions on whether one analysis technique is better than another. This fact actually enhances the power of the climate establishment because no one can 'prove' them wrong - they can simply declare that their analysis method is correct end the discussion. That is what has happened with the tree ring studies and other paleo reconstructions. It is also happening with climate models and the analyses use to determine whether they are correct or not. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

You might have a point except that description applies to most papers produced by Mann yet that did not stop the IPCC from featuring them quite prominently. Of course, you might say that is just my opinion but that would be the point. It is only the in OPINION of Mann and Co that the paper should not have been published. That does mean it is true.

The bottom line is it does not make one shred of difference how much they believed the paper was wrong they had no business interfering with the editor/journal. By doing so they corrupted the peer review process and undermined its credibility.

Any refutation to Mann should reflect within the peer-response... we could cycle all the way back through MBH iterations... to what end? The "hockey-stick" is sooooo yesterday, but feel free to presume to resurrect it along with anything else McIntyre feels he needs to do to help vindicate the trouncing he took.

The "OPINION of Mann and Co", in that particular single Soon/Balunias paper, essentially (indirectly) encapsulates the complete entire community of climate scientists that support the theory of AGW..... because that completely and absolutely discredited Soon/Balunias paper, without any foundation within the paper itself, while misrepresenting the works of 13 cited authors, called to question AGW itself. It could have been simply dispatched by the community and dealt with separately through peer-response... as ultimately, it was. However, would it be misplaced to suggest the political climate of the day was a factor/influence?... when you had Inhofe bringing forward a Congressional review over the Soon/Balunias paper, when you had the Bush admin attempting to use the paper to influence policy/direction against the Kyoto Protocol. So... complaints against the paper are raised within the AGU (all there, all transparent). That's it - anything else is secondary and internal with the journal Climate Research as handled by it's publisher/editors.

Attempting to twist (and interpret) the cryptic short narrative within a hacked email as a suggestion of widespread (or specific) intimidation, conspiracy and blackmail, is simply and absolutely ludicrous. Again, there is no there, there.

[Goat Boy©]

lol, so sad you preach the science but you don't understand it...

current solar activity is low and temps are still going up, no one claimed solar activity isn't linked to our temp which should be obvious to even the scientifically challenged, it's just not linked to this warming... the link between solar activity and GW ended in the mid 70's...is it still linked to el nino's and la nina's? ya, look at the graph and you can see where it corresponds to the 98' uber el Nino which is added to the overall warming but is not related to solar activity...

You are honestly trying to say, that by adding heat to a closed system, it is not going to get warmer? Are...you...serious?

The key factor here, is that to blame rising temperatures to solar activity alone, is as foolish as trying to blame them on carbon dioxide alone. The earth is a complex, dynamic system, the answers cannot be found in one sentence.

[Riverwind]

Any refutation to Mann should reflect within the peer-response

And that is what Mann and co should have done with the Soon paper. Instead they did not want to bother with such steps and choose to blackmail the journal involved and undermined the peer review process. You can spin it what ever way you want but that fact these emails are waking people up to how much corruption exists in climate science and the honest scientists are calling for change. The people who insist that they did nothing wrong simply make a bad problem worse. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shady]

current solar activity is low and temps are still going up

No, you're lying again.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

Got any more lies to debunk?

[wyly]

CO2 can cause positive feedback but its effect is mostly in warming. Earth warms, ice melts, co2 is released, earth warms more, more ice melts, more co2 is released, etc. This goes on until there is no more ice and the CO2 levels can go down again. I don't remember it saying that CO2 caused the start of Ice Ages, but I look at it again when I get home this computer sucks to much.

your timeline is questionable...CO2 levels will keep rising long after the ice is gone, no ice means warmer oceans result in more CO2 and methane, this is the CO2 lag found in ice core samples that happens about 800 yrs after peak temps...currently CO2 is spiking ahead of temps which not the typical process...

Scientists do have an open environment for debate there are plenty of people who disagree with the idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

plenty of scientists disagree? it's relative ...those that disagree are very few in number compared to those who do,97% agree it's CO2...where you'll find disagreement is how severe the damage will be and on how soon it will happen not the cause...

[Shady]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

[Shady]

Global warming? Look at the numbers

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

[waldo]

And that is what Mann and co should have done with the Soon paper. Instead they did not want to bother with such steps and choose to blackmail the journal involved and undermined the peer review process. You can spin it what ever way you want but that fact these emails are waking people up to how much corruption exists in climate science and the honest scientists are calling for change. The people who insist that they did nothing wrong simply make a bad problem worse.

and that is what happened... through the peer-response follow-up. You keep throwing around this blackmail tag???

the Climate Research journal published the paper... the publisher didn't rescind the Soon/Baliunas paper... the publisher didn't recognize the raised concerns of his/other Climate Research journal editors about the paper... and didn't publish the 'citation' of his concerned editors who wanted the journal to formally indicate it didn't support the paper - editors that weren't themselves actually involved in reviewing the paper. Somehow - out of all that - you read intimidation, conspiracy and blackmail... now add corruption with this your latest reply. Yeesh... talk about spin!

[waldo]

Shady's on a run!... on a tear - how did any of this get by the science? Why those wrascally scientists, why didn't they just listen to Shady!!!

[Riverwind]

and that is what happened... through the peer-response follow-up. You keep throwing around this blackmail tag

The evidence is there. They blackmailed journals by threatening to stop giving them papers. They got an editor removed because they felt he was a 'sceptic'. It does not make a difference if a bank robber thinks thinks the bank deserved to be robbed - the robbing banks is wrong. Same goes for blackmailing journals and demanding that editors be fired.

[wyly]

No, you're lying again.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

Got any more lies to debunk?

accusing someone of lying is considered a personal attack are you sure you want to continue down that road?

1-Willis who your blog is referring to questions the argo data...Willis says there are problems with observing systems temp recordings they are not reflecting sea level rise

2-oceans take centuries to warm to see a clear rise this early is silly, ice core samples show oceans take 800 yrs to warm...

3-just as the surface temps are effected by solar variation so are upper levels of the ocean(el nino and la nina events)there will be a natural cyclical rise and fall, duh!

4-...the ocean levels are rising half is attributed to melting glaciers the rest thermal expansion...7th grade science tells us heat causes expansion, it is positively impossible for the oceans to expand/rise without heating...

you must have been sleeping through the 7th grade...

[waldo]

You're sbsolutely false.

Sun's Activity Cycle Linked to Earth Climate

When the sun's weather is most active, it can impact Earth’s climate in a way that is similar to El Niño and La Niña events, a new study suggests

True believer, you need to allow science a place in your life.

lol, so sad you preach the science but you don't understand it...

current solar activity is low and temps are still going up, no one claimed solar activity isn't linked to our temp which should be obvious to even the scientifically challenged, it's just not linked to this warming... the link between solar activity and GW ended in the mid 70's...is it still linked to el nino's and la nina's? ya, look at the graph and you can see where it corresponds to the 98' uber el Nino which is added to the overall warming but is not related to solar activity...

yup... dagnabbit! There is such a thing as solar radiative forcing, after all - and it's HUGE!

(note: pending updates to deal with the "first-order forcing" of vegetation - re: Pielke (re: Riverwind))

[wyly]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

CHERRY PICKER!'98 was an el nino year LOL!

[wyly]

Global warming? Look at the numbers

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

LOL! 1934 LOL!!! that refers to temps in the USA not Global got any more laughs you want to share....

[waldo]

The evidence is there. They blackmailed journals by threatening to stop giving them papers. They got an editor removed because they felt he was a 'sceptic'. It does not make a difference if a bank robber thinks thinks the bank deserved to be robbed - the robbing banks is wrong. Same goes for blackmailing journals and demanding that editors be fired.

Again, with the blackmail! What evidence... in your best anally retentive way, parse the hacked email words to show where a threat was made, delivered, received and acted upon. The editor was not fired... the editor remained on with the journal... in fact, remained on with journal even after all the other editors resigned (resigned because the publisher wouldn't formally distance the journal from the paper). The publisher formally stated he supported his journal's peer-review process... the process proved failed by not properly vetting the paper. Blackmail?

If you really want to go down this path, would you consider elements of "intimidation/conspiracy/blackmail/corruption" for the Bush admin to attempt to use the paper to confirm it's non-support for the Kyoto Protocol?... would you consider Sen. Inhofe's actions concerning this paper as reflective of "intimidation/conspiracy/blackmail/corruption"? And ultimately, how would you characterize the motivations of the paper's authors in writing something with a massively impacting conclusion, one that couldn't actually be represented within, nor concluded from, anything written/appearing within the paper. I've already provided you links to the organizations that those authors were affiliated with and the associated funding they received... would you consider any elements of "intimidation/conspiracy/blackmail/corruption" factored?

[Riverwind]

Again, with the blackmail! What evidence... in your best anally retentive way, parse the hacked email words to show where a threat was made, delivered, received and acted upon.

The intent is enough to establish the low ethical standards of the scientists and cast doubt on the integrity of the process. We need a public inquiry with people testifying under oath to find out what actually happened. Also there were two different incidents. In the JGL case the editor was, in fact, fired. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[wyly]

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

That took 3.5 seconds. Just an increase in solar energy alone. That doesn't even account for variations in the kinds of radiation arriving, variations in magnitude of said radiation, variations of the earth's atmosphere to reflect it.....

you find one researcher among tens of thousands that has an unproven hypothesis on cosmic rays and cloud formation vapour and now that is the absolute last word, too funny...

connection between solar activity and extra warming ended 30 yrs ago...