ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Oleg Bach]

Forget about cooling or warming and concentrate on the fact that we have climate disruption. This atmospheric injury leads to extreme and violent weather that destroys property along with human beings - It must be put in check.

[waldo]

I have often said that the science really isn't my problem with global warming, my problem has always been the alarmist claims and reactionary politically driven solutions such as that presented by such political activists as Al Gore and David Suzuki. So my problem is the politicization of the science.

The fact the science has been marred by political expediency should be one of your problems but doesn't seem to bother you at all. Should we do something about global warming? Only from an anthropogenic point of view. We are well aware of the fact we should minimize our "footprint" from a polluting point of view and I believe we are technologically looking to do that. Science is at work trying to find alternative energy sources and all that.

if you claim to observe politicization, then your self-described skeptical position shouldn't be so blind as to only recognize a single side of that politicization. You're quick to reach for a couple go-to names; however, until you acknowledge the full spectrum, your ideological spin is self-serving. I'll believe you when you start to acknowledge the likes of past personalized political based attacks against Jim Hansen... the antics of Inhofe... the Bush admin actions... the intense lobbying efforts of "big oil"... the vested interests of so-called "think-tanks", etc.

you also continue the tired line that those that accept the impact of AGW global warming are unable to differentiate the science... from the politicization, real or perceived. Other than working to mitigate mankind's impact, what other recourse do you think exists?

The recent finding of evidence that global warming science has been ideologically tainted merely adds fuel to my skepticism and raises further questions about the scientists involved and what they are forwarding.

what recent finding of evidence do you speak to... explicitly and pointed evidence? What... and how... has the science been ideologically tainted... explicitly and pointedly?

Is asking whether you are a Union rep a socialist slag? You shouldn't be so sensitive - we are all socialists now. I am just curious as to how far left you really are.

asking the question suggests more of yourself than any answer you might receive. Since you're an avowed socialist, what measuring stick do you rely upon to categorize your expressed degrees of that socialism? Where does being a labour representative fit within your categorization levels... how many points do you award for being a labour representative... and are they "positive" or "negative" points in terms of your degree categorization of socialism? Pliny, where do you personally fit on your socialism categorization scale? Are you happy there - or do you aspire to be that Union rep... be all you can be Pliny, be all you can be!

[Pliny]

I feel precisely the same way about the politicization of the science of economics. Edit out what it is they're actually talking about and the alarmism from each side is identical, probably for the same reason.

You are not generally afraid of that which you understand. Economics is a tool that is used to create alarmism by politicians, who usually don't understand it either, and can only create be effective if there is a lack of understanding of the subject.

[Pliny]

if you claim to observe politicization, then your self-described skeptical position shouldn't be so blind as to only recognize a single side of that politicization. You're quick to reach for a couple go-to names; however, until you acknowledge the full spectrum, your ideological spin is self-serving. I'll believe you when you start to acknowledge the likes of past personalized political based attacks against Jim Hansen... the antics of Inhofe... the Bush admin actions... the intense lobbying efforts of "big oil"... the vested interests of so-called "think-tanks", etc.

I have in other threads, criticized Bush. The lobbying efforts of Big oil I just mentioned and it is efective because government gets a large percentage of it's revenues from big oil, of which they own 80% of the resource.

Think tanks have a vested interest certainly. You use your left wing think tanks and the right uses their right wing think tanks. We know they have a vested interest and that has to be taken into account in any analysis of their output.

you also continue the tired line that those that accept the impact of AGW global warming are unable to differentiate the science... from the politicization, real or perceived. Other than working to mitigate mankind's impact, what other recourse do you think exists?

Definitely not mass redistributions of wealth. Government, which is only politicians after all, should perhaps be sounding the warning bells so technology and society can move in the direction of improvement. I beleive youare of the opinion that it cannot be done without the proverbial political will being imposed upon the world.

what recent finding of evidence do you speak to... explicitly and pointed evidence? What... and how... has the science been ideologically tainted... explicitly and pointedly?

Come on Waldo, what's this thread all about? Open your eyes.

asking the question suggests more of yourself than any answer you might receive. Since you're an avowed socialist, what measuring stick do you rely upon to categorize your expressed degrees of that socialism? Where does being a labour representative fit within your categorization levels... how many points do you award for being a labour representative... and are they "positive" or "negative" points in terms of your degree categorization of socialism? Pliny, where do you personally fit on your socialism categorization scale? Are you happy there - or do you aspire to be that Union rep... be all you can be Pliny, be all you can be!

I am working on becoming benevolent dictator of the world and I need to know where you stand before I shout, "Off with his head!" I am not here to kneel to anyone but to engage in pleasant discourse.

So, are you the Union rep at your shop?

Gotta go. Have a glorious day!

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an article to keep Waldo occupied along with an interesting comment from an Australian:

The comment:

You can download more than 100 years of daily temperature readings from several places around Australia. Graph them in Excel, and guess what?

Well - that's why they keep trying to re-name "glabal warming" to "climate change" - because my hemisphere is not warming.

I would dearly love to know how all that CO2 is "trapped" in the northern hemisphere, or if not, why the CO2 in my hemishphere does nothing, but in yours it's suposedly heating you up.

In my experience - when simple facts don't add up, the cause is usually that the so-called facts are wrong. Humans love talking about weather; it's a pity someone hijacked their favorite past-time and tried to turn it into a money-making trading enterprise...

- Chris, Australia, 10/1/2010 16:10

An Excerpt from the Article:

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

This image of the UK taken from NASA's multi-national Terra satellite on Thursday shows the extent of the freezing weather

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

[waldo]

Here's an article to keep Waldo occupied along with an interesting comment from an Australian:

yes... from the Australian... it continues to display it's biased contrarian position. In any case, Simple, your short retention span, once again, rises to the top. Your previous attempts with misquoting and misrepresenting Latif have already been dealt with in another MLW thread (links follow)... doesn't it hurt to keep banging your head against the same 'global cooling myth' wall?

linkee #1

linkee #2

linkee #3

linkee #4

linkee #5

linkee #6

... now, you could have continued on from that thread if your intent was to leverage the article's Latif angle... or... you could have really shown your ignorance in touting weather as climate... without bothering to blindly drop a link to the contrarian Australian rag. Your choice.

btw - I have no cycles to play further today... given that this, as you say, "occupation of my time" took only a simple MLW search to realize your lack of retention... no problem - time well invested!

[Keepitsimple]

yes... from the Australian... it continues to display it's biased contrarian position. In any case, Simple, your short retention span, once again, rises to the top. Your previous attempts with misquoting and misrepresenting Latif have already been dealt with in another MLW thread (links follow)... doesn't it hurt to keep banging your head against the same 'global cooling myth' wall?

linkee #1

linkee #2

linkee #3

linkee #4

linkee #5

linkee #6

... now, you could have continued on from that thread if your intent was to leverage the article's Latif angle... or... you could have really shown your ignorance in touting weather as climate... without bothering to blindly drop a link to the contrarian Australian rag. Your choice.

btw - I have no cycles to play further today... given that this, as you say, "occupation of my time" took only a simple MLW search to realize your lack of retention... no problem - time well invested!

......and it's still cold outside - all over the world.

[Pliny]

Latif is trying to explain to you that the models were incorrect and why they were incorrect in their predictions and you agree with him, right?

So cooling has been the trend in the last decade. The models were wrong in their predictions because of some information not included. Is that what Latif is saying?

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an interesting update on the extent of the Arctic Sea Ice and the Arctic Oscillation (AO). As Waldo will tell you - don't think - the science is settled. Here is what the National Snow & Ice Data Center has to say.....now remember, the AO is a critical part of the Climate System and should be accurately represented in any and all IPCC models. Yet these experts say the following (my bold):

While a negative AO leads to warmer temperatures over the Arctic, it also tends to reduce the flow of sea ice out of the Arctic by affecting the winds that can export the ice to warmer waters, where it melts. In this way, a negative AO could help retain some the second- and third-year ice through the winter, and potentially rebuild some of the older, multiyear ice that has been lost over the past few years. However, we do not yet know if the strongly negative AO will persist through the winter, or what its net effect will be.

And of course....after browsing all the information, one is left with the question "Will the Arctic actually be ice-free in the near future, or not?".........it's settled, they say. Hhmmm.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[Pliny]

And of course....after browsing all the information, one is left with the question "Will the Arctic actually be ice-free in the near future, or not?".........it's settled, they say. Hhmmm.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

You're just an alarmist - Waldo is getting very alarmed!

Edited January 11, 2010 by Pliny

[Keepitsimple]

Another piece of alarmist propaganda put to rest.......

Big thaw fears put on ice in East Antarctica

January 12, 2010

OSLO, NORWAY–Sea water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming, tests revealed Monday.

The findings, a rare bit of good news after worrying signs in recent years of polar warming, add a small bit to a puzzle about how Antarctica is responding to climate change.

Sensors lowered through three holes drilled in the Fimbul Ice Shelf, inset, showed the sea water is still around freezing and not at higher temperatures widely blamed for the breakup of 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, the most northerly part of the continent.

"The water under the ice shelf is very close to the freezing point," Ole Anders Noest of the Norwegian Polar Institute wrote in a statement after drilling through the Fimbul, which is up to 400 metres thick. "This situation seems to be stable, suggesting that the melting under the ice shelf does not increase."

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/749511--big-thaw-fears-put-on-ice-in-east-antarctica

[waldo]

......and it's still cold outside - all over the world.

alllllll... over the world, Simple? About that "AO - Arctic Oscillation", you speak to Simple - here... also, catch up on your weather vs. climate understanding:

What does seem clear is that these oscillations have nothing to do with global warming, or, for that matter, global cooling. For one, they’re not new. And this winter’s cold has not been global. Santa, by North Pole standards, has been experiencing a balmy winter.

“Pretty much all of the Arctic is above normal,” said Dr. Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. In some areas, the temperatures are as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit above normal.

[waldo]

Here's an interesting update on the extent of the Arctic Sea Ice and the Arctic Oscillation (AO). As Waldo will tell you - don't think - the science is settled. Here is what the National Snow & Ice Data Center has to say.....now remember, the AO is a critical part of the Climate System and should be accurately represented in any and all IPCC models. Yet these experts say the following (my bold):

And of course....after browsing all the information, one is left with the question "Will the Arctic actually be ice-free in the near future, or not?".........it's settled, they say. Hhmmm.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

playing tricks... word games... with the "science is settled" meme, Simple?

what's your point Simple? What is it you'd explicitly like to state concerning AO index - historical, sea ice extent - historical, multiple vs. single year sea ice extent - historical, model projections, natural vs. AGW, etc.?

[Keepitsimple]

what's your point Simple? What is it you'd explicitly like to state concerning AO index - historical, sea ice extent - historical, multiple vs. single year sea ice extent - historical, model projections, natural vs. AGW, etc.?

The point was made by the NSAI.....nothing explicit can be said about the AO because they are not sure how it really works and they are not really sure if the ice conditions will deteriorate. In short, Climate Science as it relates to the AO component is not "settled". That's my point. My other post pointed out that the East Antarctic does not appear to be in any danger of melting - contrary to alarmist claims. And again, my point is that another "observational component" of the Alarmist theory is not "settled". Science is almost always proven by observation......I'm keeping my eyes open.

While a negative AO leads to warmer temperatures over the Arctic, it also tends to reduce the flow of sea ice out of the Arctic by affecting the winds that can export the ice to warmer waters, where it melts. In this way, a negative AO could help retain some the second- and third-year ice through the winter, and potentially rebuild some of the older, multiyear ice that has been lost over the past few years. However, we do not yet know if the strongly negative AO will persist through the winter, or what its net effect will be.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[jbg]

You're just an alarmist - Waldo is getting very alarmed!

I'm the one who argued that the solution to climate crisis was deep, thorough, unmitigated panic.

[waldo]

The point was made by the NSAI.....nothing explicit can be said about the AO because they are not sure how it really works and they are not really sure if the ice conditions will deteriorate. In short, Climate Science as it relates to the AO component is not "settled". That's my point. My other post pointed out that the East Antarctic does not appear to be in any danger of melting - contrary to alarmist claims. And again, my point is that another "observational component" of the Alarmist theory is not "settled". Science is almost always proven by observation......I'm keeping my eyes open.

again with your "settled" meme... we've gone down this path previously - you've been shown the observational results of dramatic lost Arctic ice... you've been shown the graphics that present the historical loss of multi-year ice... you've been shown the graphics that present the preponderance of first-year ice. You've been presented studies/papers that speak to the Arctic ice loss. You ignore that observational result... and the published papers... that's occurred over periods of both positive and negative AO. Exactly what are you keeping your eyes open to?

you pop-up again with another of your blind link drops about Antarctica... while offering your single comment: "Another piece of alarmist propaganda put to rest.......". Far be if from you to actually pursue it further. That Fimbul Ice Shelf has been purposely targeted because it's one of the only shelves that actually hasn't shown melting loss... and scientists are attempting to uncover why... there are several shelves on the same latitude as Fimbul that show melting - but not Fimbul - hence, the investigation. An investigation that has left instrumentation intended to monitor the longer-term events.

you ignore all the other shelves melting in favour of a minuscule newspaper report, while making your pompous declaration... in fact, you ignore anything that's going on in West Antarctica in favour of a minuscule newspaper report about a particular East Antarctica shelf, while making your pompous declaration. You ignore the actual glacier melting and don't seem to even grasp the distinction between glacier melting and ice-shelf melting... and it's really only the ice-shelves that are preventing a more rapid loss of melting glacier water from running freely into the ocean.

[wyly]

reading some of the recent posts(.....and it's still cold outside - all over the world)it should an embarrasment to all of us that so many Canadians are ignorant on the differences between weather and climate...I expect that from americans from the more temperate states not giving the weather much thought but Canadians who have lived their entire lives here not understanding weather is really surprising...

Edited January 13, 2010 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

reading some of the recent posts(.....and it's still cold outside - all over the world)it should an embarrasment to all of us that so many Canadians are ignorant on the differences between weather and climate

Why? Canada gets a lot of their weather data from those "ignorant" american satellites!

...I expect that from americans from the more temperate states not giving the weather much thought but Canadians who have lived their entire lives here not understanding weather is really surprising...

What not to understand about 80% of the population living close to the US border? I think they have figured it out despite your criticism of their understanding.

Edited January 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

again with your "settled" meme... we've gone down this path previously - you've been shown the observational results of dramatic lost Arctic ice...

If you were a scientist waldo would you just discredit every contrary view and use that as a justification to ignore them and not have to look at them? This is the question being asked about the subject and it is a problem of the scientific model that once a "theory" becomes accepted it falls into the trap of being accepted "fact". History is strewn with discounted theory that was considered fact. Not too recent was the coming ice-age. We were supposed to paint our roofs black back then but now we are supposed to paint them white.

Science says the Earth is warming. It is also saying we are entering a cooling period at present. It seems rather incongruous that increasing anthropogenic levels of CO2 should allow for any cooling to take place at all. Entering a cooling period raises the question of whether or not the overall warming is anthropogenic or natural.

Anyway, you should not have to worry in your lifetime about the effects of global warming and rest assured we are looking for technological solutions to reducing our carbon footprint. Does that make you feel better?

I would hesitate to make any active plans to reverse engineer climate change at this time. That would, after all, be talking about attempting to control the climate. If the climate were cooling would you suggest increasing our CO2 output? I don't think so.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I would hesitate to make any active plans to reverse engineer climate change at this time. That would, after all, be talking about attempting to control the climate. If the climate were cooling would you suggest increasing our CO2 output? I don't think so.

Agreed...it appears that the half-baked (pun intened) CO2 source/sink modeling hasn't worked itself out yet in the face of conflicting data. Guess they need to conjure up a few more feedback loops and squelch even more data to get the Global Warming Climate Change mojo back.

[waldo]

If you were a scientist waldo would you just discredit every contrary view and use that as a justification to ignore them and not have to look at them? This is the question being asked about the subject and it is a problem of the scientific model that once a "theory" becomes accepted it falls into the trap of being accepted "fact". History is strewn with discounted theory that was considered fact. Not too recent was the coming ice-age. We were supposed to paint our roofs black back then but now we are supposed to paint them white.

it's been said here before - you're just not listening. Science advances with challenges to the status quo... accepted challenges that actually add to or refute the status quo. To legitimately discredit a challenge... it must be looked at, not ignored - duh! Your problem, your difficulty, is you don't perceive discredited challenges as having been reviewed - themselves challenged. You just think they're ignored. They're not... skeptic challenges are thoroughly reviewed and, if warranted, beaten back with comment and/or study. If you have a pet skeptic challenge you feel is being ignored, why don't you bring it forward?

your example has also been talked of extensively here on MLW - again, you're just not listening. That 1970's ice age prediction was predominantly media based... I even put up a link to a study that "studied the published papers" over that period. That study showed, overwhelming, the percentage majority of scientific papers during that period predicting warming... a lesser percentage number included no prediction... and a most insignificant percentage actually predicted cooling.

Science says the Earth is warming. It is also saying we are entering a cooling period at present. It seems rather incongruous that increasing anthropogenic levels of CO2 should allow for any cooling to take place at all. Entering a cooling period raises the question of whether or not the overall warming is anthropogenic or natural.

no... no it doesn't. Again, while global warming continues, natural variations may cause short interval periods where the degree of that warming isn't increasing as rapidly... the overall longer-term trend remains toward increased global warming.

Anyway, you should not have to worry in your lifetime about the effects of global warming and rest assured we are looking for technological solutions to reducing our carbon footprint. Does that make you feel better?

sure Pliny, "looking for" technological solutions is an easy platitude to throw out there, isn't it? Can you describe the practical extensions and anticipated results of your "looking for", particularly in terms of agw global warming?

I would hesitate to make any active plans to reverse engineer climate change at this time. That would, after all, be talking about attempting to control the climate. If the climate were cooling would you suggest increasing our CO2 output? I don't think so.

before this gets declared as one of the more stoopid statements to arise in a while, Pliny... please clarify, if you will... are you saying you equate short, middle and long-term mitigation strategies as "climate control"?

[waldo]

Agreed...it appears that the half-baked (pun intened) CO2 source/sink modeling hasn't worked itself out yet in the face of conflicting data. Guess they need to conjure up a few more feedback loops and squelch even more data to get the Global Warming Climate Change mojo back.

heelarious... notwithstanding the beat-back you took over your futile 'volcano distraction' attempt, do you actually have anything to say?

[Michael Hardner]

alllllll... over the world, Simple? About that "AO - Arctic Oscillation", you speak to Simple - here... also, catch up on your weather vs. climate understanding:

Now YOU are talking about weather.

[Michael Hardner]

Science says the Earth is warming. It is also saying we are entering a cooling period at present.

When did science say that ?

[wyly]

Now YOU are talking about weather.

I believe that was his point...the denier crowd think a uncommon cold snap in Europe is some sort of proof that the world is cooling/climate change but it's only short term weather...