ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Guest TrueMetis]

Come on. That tells us nothing useful. What we need know is how MUCH heating. And when it comes to answering that question there are no experimental results. Just data collection, data estimation fabrication and analysis. The difference between who is "right" and who is "wrong" comes down to a popularity contest among scientists.

Except there have been experiments to show how much heating CO2 causes.

[Riverwind]

Except there have been experiments to show how much heating CO2 causes.

And there are experments that allow us to determine the gravitational constant and predict (accurately) how fast objects in a vaccuum will fall. However, such experiments are useless if you are trying to determine how fast a feather will fall. Lab experiments quantifying the effect of CO2 mean nothing in a real climate filled with oceans, clouds and convective heating. Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Except there have been experiments to show how much heating CO2 causes.

Right....and it has turned into a collective circus. How much? Leading or lagging indicator? Forget about methane or other "GHGs"?

[Guest TrueMetis]

And there are experments that allow us to determine the gravitational constant and predict (accurately) how fast objects in a vaccuum will fall. However, such experiments are useless if you are trying to determine how fast a feather will fall. Lab experiments quantifying the effect of CO2 mean nothing in the real world.

In most cases the effect of air resistance on an object is negligable the feather is the exception not the rule. Same thing goes for CO2.

[Riverwind]

In most cases the effect of air resistance on an object is negligable the feather is the exception not the rule. Same thing goes for CO2.

Even the IPCC admits that the magnitude of the CO2 effect in climate 90% likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5 degC/doubling. The bottom line is the effect of CO2 on climate is completely unknown and cannot be determined in a lab experiment. The opinion of the scientific 'consensus' on this point is nothing but an opinion and cannot be treated as a scientifically verified fact.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Even the IPCC admits that the magnitude of the CO2 effect in climate 90% likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5 degC/doubling. The bottom line is the effect of CO2 on climate is completely unknown and cannot be determined in a lab experiment. The opinion of the scientific 'consensus' on this point is nothing but an opinion and cannot be treated as a scientifically verified fact.

A fact is anything that can be checked and confirmed, that CO2 causes things to heat faster and by how much they increase heat can be checked and confirmed. CO2's effect on the earth is to heat it, this is fact and not opinion.

[Riverwind]

A fact is anything that can be checked and confirmed, that CO2 causes things to heat faster and by how much they increase heat can be checked and confirmed. CO2's effect on the earth is to heat it, this is fact and not opinion.

You are going in circles. Try explaining how the MAGNITUDE of the CO2 effect on the earth's climate can be checked and confirmed. You will find that it is impossible to do without making up a bunch of data and hoping that it has some connection to reality. Different scientists can come to different conclusions by making up different data. The consensus is based on who, in the opinion of the majority of scientists, has done the best job of making up data. Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

You are going in circles. Try explaining how the MAGNITUDE of the CO2 effect on the earth's climate can be checked and confirmed. You will find that it is impossible to do without making up a bunch of data and hoping that it has some connection to reality. Different scientists can come to different conclusions by making up different data. The consensus is based on who, in the opinion of the majority of scientists, has done the best job of making up data.

CO2 increases the earths temperature because it absorbs radiation. It absorbs that radiation at a set rate. Using whatever that set rate is it wouldn't be that hard figure out how much CO2 increases temperature by.

[Riverwind]

CO2 increases the earths temperature because it absorbs radiation. It absorbs that radiation at a set rate. Using whatever that set rate is it wouldn't be that hard figure out how much CO2 increases temperature by.

Sure. That number is 1.0 degC/doubling (i.e. nothing to worry about). The trouble is the IPCC says the sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 and it could be higher or lower. The difference is due to complex non-linear feedbacks related to clouds and water vapour. That is why I used the example of the feather.

Climate scientists come up with the numbers they did by looking at past data, making up data they don't have and calculating what the sensitivity would have to be to explain the temperature change. In the case of the ice ages they have to make up data for all of the different feeback mechanisms like ice albedo, ocean currents, vegitation, clouds. etc. Different estimates in those values will give completely different estimates for CO2 sensitivity.

That is why the opinion of the IPCC on CO2 sensitivity is an opinion and not a verifiable fact.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Argus]

Well if the Feds won't do something better for the country to help the environment than its time for the provinces to do it on their own, and Quebec is ready to do just that and I also heard that Ontario would be willing to join Quebec. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091123/charest_greenhouse_091123/20091123?hub=QPeriod

Let's see. What's the commonality between these two provinces?

Hmmm

Quebec has been financially mismanaged for decades, and is basically a welfare province.

Ontario's government has and is running its economy into the ground, producing the largest deficit in Ontario's history - and that deficit is not in any large measure, due to recession fighting incentive programs, but due to massive increases in spending on various public welfare programs, and large increases in wages for government employees.

Oh, and both have governments who care nothing about anything other than public perception and getting re-elected.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sure. That number is 1.0 degC/doubling (i.e. nothing to worry about). The trouble is the IPCC says the sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 and it could be higher or lower. The difference is due to complex non-linear feedbacks related to clouds and water vapour. That is why I used the example of the feather.

Climate scientists come up with the numbers they did by looking at past data, making up data they don't have and calculating what the sensitivity would have to be to explain the temperature change. In the case of the ice ages they have to make up data for all of the different feeback mechanisms like ice albedo, ocean currents, vegitation, clouds. etc. Different estimates in those values will give completely different estimates for CO2 sensitivity.

That is why the opinion of the IPCC on CO2 sensitivity is an opinion and not a verifiable fact.

It seems like your biggest argument is that the scientists are making shit up. To which I say is if that were true than other scientists would have called them on it.

[Riverwind]

It seems like your biggest argument is that the scientists are making shit up. To which I say is if that were true than other scientists would have called them on it.

Making shit up is a perfectly acceptable way to do science. In fact, it is often the only way to do science. The only problem is when people fail to distinguish between scientific facts which can be verified in repeatable experiments and scientific opinions which cannot be verified. The the IPCC view on AGW is a scientific opinion - not a fact. It may be the view of the majority of climate scientists and that would mean something if those views were known to be objective free of conflict of interest. However, the emails reveal that climate scientists are neither objective no free of conflict of interest. This casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the consensus opinion.

[Argus]

The delusional blind faith expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning.

Yes, every time I read one of your idiotic posts I say the same.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Making shit up is a perfectly acceptable way to do science. In fact, it is often the only way to do science. The only problem is when people fail to distinguish between scientific facts which can be verified in repeatable experiments and scientific opinions which cannot be verified. The the IPCC view on AGW is a scientific opinion - not a fact. It may be the view of the majority of climate scientists and that would mean something if those views were known to be objective free of conflict of interest. However, the emails reveal that climate scientists are neither objective no free of conflict of interest. This casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the consensus opinion.

Oh and here is one of those dissenter websites that you claim don't exsist.

My link

In it's own words

Mission Statement

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.

Though some say anthropogenic "global warming" is the most serious issue facing humankind, security of energy supply is a far more serious problem. The Institute urges critical appraisal of legislative “climate fixes” for their social, political, and economic and security costs, along with their relative utility or futility.

Proposals demanding prodigious economic or political sacrifices for the sake of negligible climatic benefits should be rejected in favor of policies to address graver, more immediate concerns about which something constructive can actually be done.

SPPI meets its educational objectives through timely online publication of white papers, peer-reviewed reprints, personal briefings, PowerPoint presentations, blog entries, news stories and other educational materials containing editorials on topics of current concern and digests of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and books.

[Riverwind]

Oh and here is one of those dissenter websites that you claim don't exsist.

You will have to explain why this has any relevance to what I was talking about.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You will have to explain why this has any relevance to what I was talking about.

You were talking about how scientist who don't accept what the majority do are stopped from publishing there work. They're not as that site shows.

[Goat Boy©]

A fact is anything that can be checked and confirmed, that CO2 causes things to heat faster and by how much they increase heat can be checked and confirmed. CO2's effect on the earth is to heat it, this is fact and not opinion.

No, it can't. How can you account for convective heating, expansion of the bio-mass as a carbon sink, air density and humidity, ocean temperatures from other causes, weather fronts distributing air masses, varying adiabatic lapse rates, un-measured natural sources of carbon dioxide, other GHG's in the atmosphere that are not factored into the experiment, and thousands of other contributing factors...?

You cannot.

Hell we can't even predict the weather, if tomorrow will bring rain or sun. It is too complex. Educated guess is the best we can hope for.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Goat Boy©]

It seems like your biggest argument is that the scientists are making shit up. To which I say is if that were true than other scientists would have called them on it.

That is exactly the point of this thread, and this controversy. It's alleged that the perpetrators subjugated the peer review process to continue the use of incorrect data.

Consider the worst case scenario. For samples sake, say 1000 scientists are studying climate change, using data collected from 15 scientists. If the raw data from those 15 scientists is cooked, all of the work becomes useless.

Absolute worst case scenario, and certainly alarmist, but given the stakes involved, without question warrants 3rd party investigation IMHO. This CRU was on the forefront of climate data collection.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, it can't. How can you account for convective heating, expansion of the bio-mass as a carbon sink, air density and humidity, ocean temperatures from other causes, weather fronts distributing air masses, varying adiabatic lapse rates, un-measured natural sources of carbon dioxide, other GHG's in the atmosphere that are not factored into the experiment, and thousands of other contributing factors...?

You cannot.

Hell we can't even predict the weather, if tomorrow will bring rain or sun. It is too complex. Educated guess is the best we can hope for.

First off ignore the factors that don't have to do with CO2. They play a role but that is not what we were talking about. In the end it is really very simple W amount of CO2 raises the temperature X there is Y CO2 so the temp should raise Z. Riverwind just posted that that amount is 1.0 degC/doubling

If it has not increased by the predicted temperature that's when you start looking for the other factors, Sun intensity, the ice albedo effect, etcetera.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That is exactly the point of this thread, and this controversy. It's alleged that the perpetrators subjugated the peer review process to continue the use of incorrect data.

Consider the worst case scenario. For samples sake, say 1000 scientists are studying climate change, using data collected from 15 scientists. If the raw data from those 15 scientists is cooked, all of the work becomes useless.

Absolute worst case scenario, and certainly alarmist, but given the stakes involved, without question warrants 3rd party investigation IMHO. This CRU was on the forefront of climate data collection.

If the scientists have actually done this than they have destoryed their credbility and their chances of future employment. Which is why most scientists won't risk it. The peer review process is better at catching mistakes and delibrate fakes then any other process we have but it is still run by humans they miss thing. Fortunately it will eventually be caught (usually sooner rather than later) and the scientist responsible will be punished.

Who do you think should be the third party? The only people with the know how to investigate are other climatologists fortunately there are many independant climatologists to go to.

[Goat Boy©]

First off ignore the factors that don't have to do with CO2. They play a role but that is not what we were talking about. In the end it is really very simple W amount of CO2 raises the temperature X there is Y CO2 so the temp should raise Z. Riverwind just posted that that amount is 1.0 degC/doubling

If it has not increased by the predicted temperature that's when you start looking for the other factors, Sun intensity, the ice albedo effect, etcetera.

Who are you to say what plays a role and what doesn't? Why the tunnel vision? Why not look at the grand scope of things? There are thousands of factors that impact the worlds climate, why carbon dioxide alone? What about methane, H2O, natural sources of carbon, the level of biomass on the ground? All of these things play an important role. Without question, CO2 by all present data appears to be the most important, but what have we missed? We've missed something in just about every human endeavor in history, why is there no fear now? What are the consequences if we're wrong?

The only thing there is a consensus of opinion on is that the world is warming and we are the cause. What the specifics are, how, why, what can be done.....lots of disparity.

Science doesn't prove, it predicts:

Contrary to popular parlance, science can never truly “prove” a theory. Science simply arrives at the best explanation of how the world works. Global warming can no more be “proven” than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases.

“All science is fallible,” Oreskes told LiveScience. “Climate science shouldn’t be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.”

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html

One of many thousands of articles, even the scientists will agree on that one.

[Riverwind]

If the scientists have actually done this than they have destoryed their credbility and their chances of future employment.

The leaked emails the include the software used construct the temperature graphs used in the IPCC reports and as input to the climate models. The code and the source databases are unmitigated crap full of ad hoc adjustments and fudge factors designed to get the data to produce the expected result. No ethical scientist who consider this datasource to be reliable or trustworthy, however, nothing will happen to Jones because it produces the result people expect to see and it is impossible to prove it is actually wrong.

The peer review process is better at catching mistakes and delibrate fakes

Peer review does nothing of the sort. People have done numerous studies and established that it is easy to get fakes into the peer reviewed literature as long as you support the established mantras. Go against those mantras and even a good papers with solid evidence will get rejected.

Who do you think should be the third party? The only people with the know how to investigate are other climatologists fortunately there are many independant climatologists to go to.

Sorry. Compiling a record of temperatures is simple statistical problem that can be done by any number of engineers and scientists. This idea that only climotologies can understand climotology is a myth spread by climotologists trying to protect their turf. Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Goat Boy©]

If the scientists have actually done this than they have destoryed their credbility and their chances of future employment. Which is why most scientists won't risk it. The peer review process is better at catching mistakes and delibrate fakes then any other process we have but it is still run by humans they miss thing. Fortunately it will eventually be caught (usually sooner rather than later) and the scientist responsible will be punished.

Who do you think should be the third party? The only people with the know how to investigate are other climatologists fortunately there are many independant climatologists to go to.

Already been cases of it happening, check this:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15419&view=findpost&p=486337

I have no idea who the 3rd party should be, I'm in no position to be the judge of that. All I offer are my opinions. I think though, we should all agree, that this warrants an investigation.

[wyly]

Better...yes...but a long way from conclusive.

I believe there is "warming"....from many sources...just as there has always been "warming" and "cooling". So we must adapt....just as before.

oh please tell us when has modern man adapted to an average global temp 5-7c than he has ever experienced??? we're not talking a million hunter gathers scattered around the globe at the time of the last ice age but 6.5 billion or soon to be 9 billion be 2050...how is that going to work, explain it to us...

[wyly]

That's basically my position, humans have caused warming but the end effect is unknown so there is no point in trying to do anything about it.

there is a very good idea of the end effect but putting your head in the sand won't make it go away...