ClimateGate and the Climatati

[wyly]

I agree that the planet can't support an infinite population, you have me there.

If you can find a cite that shows that 1 billion is too much, please provide it.

{edited to add: or 1 billion + 1}

I didn't say I believed it so why would I find a link to it?...it's redundant anyways as we're at 6.5? billion now...

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't say I believed it so why would I find a link to it?...it's redundant anyways as we're at 6.5? billion now...

Ok, do you have anything to show the population bomb effect ?

Population growth with level off and eventually stop, if the trends continue.

[GostHacked]

And to think that only 30 years ago in the 1970's we were warned about something that would change everything. Global Cooling.

Edited November 26, 2009 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

And to think that only 30 years ago in the 1970's we were warned about something that would change everything. Global Cooling.

I think we addressed that earlier in this thread.

[wyly]

Ok, do you have anything to show the population bomb effect ?

Population growth with level off and eventually stop, if the trends continue.

1.2 people going hungry is not evidence enough for you? that's kind of the heart of the problem...

where do you see population leveling off? China is doing it yes, so are a number of western countries, Africa's population will double by 2050 with no plans to curb population and the same holds true for most countries...

[wyly]

I think we addressed that earlier in this thread.

I've even posted links to research that disputes the myth to no avail, it keeps coming back...

[Michael Hardner]

1.2 people going hungry is not evidence enough for you? that's kind of the heart of the problem...

where do you see population leveling off? China is doing it yes, so are a number of western countries, Africa's population will double by 2050 with no plans to curb population and the same holds true for most countries...

1.2 billion people, not 1.2 people...

And - yes - raw numbers are important, but percentages are more important, and trends are more important still. Starvation has dropped by almost 55% since the 1970s began.

The population is increasing but the growth rate has been declining since the pill was introduced. This means that the world population will level off. ( my sourcesays 9 billion by 2300 ) After that, population would likely start to decline and some models even predict decline by that time.

[Michael Hardner]

I've even posted links to research that disputes the myth to no avail, it keeps coming back...

Like I said, it's a sign of a weak argument to say "because Newsweek talked about something, it's the same as today when 1000s of scientists are studying it and saying it's a problem".

[waldo]

Divergence is the term used by climate scientists to cover up the fact that their proxies are crap and most likely do not measure temperature no matter how much they wish it to be true. Truncating the data at 1960 is their way of hiding this reality from readers who might suspect something is not right about the proxies. It is scientific dishonesty plain and simple and cannot be explained away with some hand waving about some unknown mechanism that caused the trees to stop responding to temperature.

Continued Riverwind nonsense... you're really scrambling now, aren't you?

There's no cover-up, there's nothing hidden - divergence within Dendrochonology is a widely discussed and studied area... that reflects upon post-1960 tree-ring data as associated to certain - not all - northern forest growth areas... and even within a particular forest growth area where divergence has been observed, it may only present itself within the data associated with a small regional pocket... and even then, if the data from that anomalous regional pocket is included within the greater more global area data, it may have little if any impact on the overall reconstruction being created from the complete area's data sets. In spite of McIntyre's incompetence displayed in attempting to disprove the Briffa Yamal study, that study specifically showed that:

- the data set associated with a sampling of trees from the small 'regional pocket' from the Khadyta River in Russia, showed deviation from the norm... exhibited divergence... when compared to the multiple data sets representing the greater more global area across the complete Russian Yamal region.

- however...

even when the 'divergent data set' from the small Khadyta River regional pocket is included within the full compliment of the Yamal region's multiple data sets, there is little effect on the overall chronology

On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes

An anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the “divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global carbon cycle. Herein we review the current literature published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth.

These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is ‘global dimming’, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades, to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. It is theorized that the dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern latitudes, consistent with what has been observed from the tree-ring record. Additional potential causes include “end effects” and other methodological issues that can emerge in standardization and chronology development, and biases in instrumental target data and its modeling.

Although limited evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more research is needed to confirm these observations.

Edited November 26, 2009 by waldo

[waldo]

It was people like you that claimed there was a 'consensus'. It was people like you that claimed there is no doubt about man-made global warming. Now you want to backtrack and pretend like you accepted a legitimate division within the scientific community, now that you've been caught up in the great global warming web of lies. Nice try.

Fix what problem? There isn't a problem to fix. That's the whole point. These emails prove cover-ups, falsifying and manipulating data, to frame the debate under a false premise.

Only a denier would chime in suggesting any of this reflects upon the actual science. What cover-ups, what falsifying and manipulating data... and what false premise? Show the emails and offer your (blogging deniers) analysis... batter up!

[Riverwind]

Try reading your own material. It completely validates what I said:

The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming...

i.e. they don't have a clue why the "divergence" occurred and they don't have any real evidence that only the period after 1960 is affected. The fact remains: if the trees diverged after 1960 and then the could (probably did) diverge at many other times in the past and they have no way to determine when that occurred. What that means is the tree rings CANNOT be used to estimate past temperatures and any scientist who says they can is either a liar or incompetent.

This is why I have so little respect for the people who call themselves climate "scientists". They basically make stuff up and try to pretend it is science and get all huffy when someone calls them on their BS.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Like I said, it's a sign of a weak argument to say "because Newsweek talked about something, it's the same as today when 1000s of scientists are studying it and saying it's a problem".

First it only takes 1 scientist to prove 10,000 wrong. Science is not about consensus. It is about truth. Second, the emails reveal that the 'consensus' is quite artifical and many scientists share the views of sceptics in private but they are pressured to keep silent publically in order to support the IPCC political agenda.

The point is we cannot make decisions based on appeals to scientific authorities because the authorities have shown themselves to be unreliable. We need to go back and look at the evidence ourselves and that evidence is showing that global warming has disappeared for 10-15 years depending on how one does the calculations and what dataset one uses. This evidence may not be conclusive but it is enough to show that there is no rush and we can afford wait and have the public inquiries into how alarmists hijacked our scientific institutions and determine what the true scientific picture is by having a second look at the science. It may come out that the case is still pretty strong but we cannot know until we have the inquiries.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

First it only takes 1 scientist to prove 10,000 wrong. Science is not about consensus. It is about truth. Second, the emails reveal that the 'consensus' is quite artifical and many scientists share the views of sceptics in private but they are pressured to keep silent publically in order to support the IPCC political agenda.

The point is we cannot make decisions based on appeals to scientific authorities because the authorities have shown themselves to be unreliable. We need to go back and look at the evidence ourselves and that evidence is showing that global warming has disappeared for 10-15 years depending on how one does the calculations and what dataset one uses. This evidence may not be conclusive but it is enough to show that there is no rush and we can afford wait and have the public inquiries into how alarmists hijacked our scientific institutions and determine what the true scientific picture is by having a second look at the science. It may come out that the case is still pretty strong but we cannot know until we have the inquiries.

1. It's about truth, but the 1 scientist finding truth and proving 10,000 wrong is a scenario that likely happens less than 1 time in 10,000. And the 'ice age' scenario was just a fad at best. It certainly doesn't help your argument to bring it up here as it's apples-to-oranges and takes away from other more valid points.

2. The emails show no such thing. There are certainly some scientists who have explaining to do, but enough debate has happened in the open to support the conclusions already made from what I've read. But the emails are still new and there's a lot to go through so let's continue to read them.

3. "The point is we cannot make decisions based on appeals to scientific authorities because the authorities have shown themselves to be unreliable. We need to go back and look at the evidence ourselves." That is just ridiculous. It's like saying "I met a quack doctor once, so I will never consult another doctor again." Yes, we should be skeptical and yes we should ask questions but no we shouldn't reject the idea of experts, academics or professionals and think that we know better.

[Riverwind]

1. It's about truth, but the 1 scientist finding truth and proving 10,000 wrong is a scenario that likely happens less than 1 time in 10,000.

Human are herd animals and such reversals are more common than you think.

2. The emails show no such thing. There are certainly some scientists who have explaining to do, but enough debate has happened in the open to support the conclusions already made from what I've read. But the emails are still new and there's a lot to go through so let's continue to read them.

Jones was quoted saying "well change the definition of peer review if we have to". That is clear evidence of abuse of authority and, more importantly, scpetical scientists have been making claims for years that this kind of abuse was going on and it was not limited to the people caught in the emails (see here). The emails give us concrete evidence that all is not right in climate science and there need to be a public inquiry.

This is really no different from when the sponsership scandal first broken. The evidence was damning. Many people felt that Chretien/Martin were implicated while others insisted it was a few "bad apples". The only way to clear the air is a public inquiry.

That is just ridiculous. It's like saying "I met a quack doctor once, so I will never consult another doctor again." Yes, we should be skeptical and yes we should ask questions but no we shouldn't reject the idea of experts, academics or professionals and think that we know better.

No it is like finding out that doctors were colluding to suppress the views of doctors that disagreed on the diagnosis/treatment for you. That leaves you with no choice but to bypass the authorities and learn what you can about the science. Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Human are herd animals and such reversals are more common than you think.

Ok, possibly but I think they're very rare.

Jones was quoted saying "well change the definition of peer review if we have to". That is clear evidence of abuse of authority and, more importantly, scpetical scientists have been making claims for years that this kind of abuse was going on and it was not limited to the people caught in the emails (see here). The emails give us concrete evidence that all is not right in climate science and there need to be a public inquiry.

Why is it not limited to the people caught in the emails ? That needs to be proven too.

This is really no different from when the sponsership scandal first broken. The evidence was damning. Many people felt that Chretien/Martin were implicated while others insisted it was a few "bad apples". The only way to clear the air is a public inquiry.

Right, and the university already said they were going to have one, so...

No it is like finding out that doctors were colluding to suppress the views of doctors that disagreed on the diagnosis/treatment for you. That leaves you with no choice but to bypass the authorities and learn what you can about the science.

You would do better to find another doctor. Suspicion of all doctors due to the bad actions of a small number is unfounded, and typical of the particular American brand of paranoia that gets in the way of things, disguised as skepticism.

[Riverwind]

Why is it not limited to the people caught in the emails ? That needs to be proven too.

Of course. But that is why we need the inquiry and have people testify under oath. We have enough evidence of malfeasance now to justify such an investigation. Witnesses need to be testifying under oath since we know that witnesses are subject to peer pressure and requiring them to testify under oath makes it easier for them to resist it.

Right, and the university already said they were going to have one, so...

Which is like the Liberal party promising to conduct their own review of the sponsership scandal. It will be a whitewash. This needs to be handled by parliament or congress.

You would do better to find another doctor.

So how do I do that with the climate change issue where governments are threatening to impose treatments on me based on the prescriptions of scientists which have been caught suppressing dissent and corrupting the peer review process?

In any case, I spent a lot of time looking into the science behind this issue because I realized the media mouth pieces on both sides of the debate were exagerating their claims. I was quite surprised to find out how much of the so called 'science' is built on unproveable assumptions which are simply accepted as truth.

The 'divergance problem' with tree ring data is a perfect example where you have alarmists claiming that the 'divergance' only affects data after 1960 yet when you look into why they say that you see they have zero evidence - it is basically a claim they made up because it allowed them to use the data and produce papers. Similar problems exist with the climate models and all of the attribution studies which are used to 'prove' that CO2 is the cause of the majority of warming over the last 30 years.

What this means is evidence that the consensus was imposed through bullying and peer pressure does have the potential to repudiate many of the key IPCC claims because so much of it depends on unproveable assumptions which are not allowed to be questioned. If people are allowed to question those assumptions a very different picture of the science would likely emerge.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Of course. But that is why we need the inquiry and have people testify under oath. We have enough evidence of malfeasance now to justify such an investigation. Witnesses need to be testifying under oath since we know that witnesses are subject to peer pressure and requiring them to testify under oath makes it easier for them to resist it.

Why under oath ? The university is holding the inquiry and I don't know if they would ask people to swear to their testimony.

Which is like the Liberal party promising to conduct their own review of the sponsership scandal. It will be a whitewash. This needs to be handled by parliament or congress.

Publishing a bad paper isn't a crime.

So how do I do that with the climate change issue where governments are threatening to impose treatments on me based on the prescriptions of scientists which have been caught suppressing dissent and corrupting the peer review process?

In any case, I spent a lot of time looking into the science behind this issue because I realized the media mouth pieces on both sides of the debate were exagerating their claims. I was quite surprised to find out how much of the so called 'science' is built on unproveable assumptions which are simply accepted as truth.

The 'divergance problem' with tree ring data is a perfect example where you have alarmists claiming that the 'divergance' only affects data after 1960 yet when you look into why they say that you see they have zero evidence - it is basically a claim they made up because it allowed them to use the data and produce papers. Similar problems exist with the climate models and all of the attribution studies which are used to 'prove' that CO2 is the cause of the majority of warming over the last 30 years.

What this means is evidence that the consensus was imposed through bullying and peer pressure does have the potential to repudiate many of the key IPCC claims because so much of it depends on unproveable assumptions which are not allowed to be questioned. If people are allowed to question those assumptions a very different picture of the science would likely emerge.

You really only have a few emails with some scientists making embarrassing statements. I don't think you have enough to do a wide investigation.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I like this guy. He seems to understand climatology.

[Riverwind]

I like this guy. He seems to understand climatology.

He understands the alarmist narrative. He grossly overstates the significance of CO2 in the ice ages. Most of the 'positive feedback' is caused by snow that reflects radition back to space more effectively than land. This means that melting ice sheets reflect less energy which means the land/ocean warms up which melts more ice. When CO2 kicks in and adds some amplification but it not the primary driver. The ice ages start when the northern hemisphere is at the furthest point from the sun during the winter. This causes cooling and allows snow/ice to persist through the northern summer which starts the positive feedback that leads to an ice age. Again, CO2 has a role but not nearly as much as he claimed.

More importantly, his claim that a small increase in temps due to CO2 could trigger runaway warming is nonsense because the earth temperatures have been much higher each time an ice age ends. If there were any 'tipping points' from stuff like melting tundras they would have been encounted a long time ago.

His claim that the models were proven correct is also false. The trends in a number of key metrics are either not warming at all or warming at a rate much less than what the models predicted. This provides a lot of evidence for non-CO2 related causes. If the temperatures stay flat for another 5 years then the CO2 as the primary driver theory will be mostly discredited.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is a series you know that right? He talks about a cooling or warming needing a trigger and most of the other points you make are dealt in the rest of his series.

Edited November 27, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

It is a series you know that right? He talks about a cooling or warming needing a trigger and most of the other points you make are dealt in the rest of his series.

The video you linked to tried to pin the ice ages entirely on positive feedback due to CO2. That is a completely incorrect presentation even if his other videos provides a more balanced presentation.

He also said 'the models were proved correct' which is false.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

The video you linked to tried to pin the ice ages entirely on positive feedback due to CO2. That is a completely incorrect presentation even if his other videos provides a more balanced presentation.

Except it didn't, it called positive feedback a part of it that started after the initial trigger. It also said CO2 caused warming not the Ice Age. He goes into the Ice age and the reasons for it in his video on the Ice Age and a few of the other climate change videos he did.

He also said 'the models were proved correct' which is false.

The models he cited were right.

Edited November 27, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

Except it didn't, it called positive feedback a part of it that started after the initial trigger.

You are missing my point. I said that melting/forming ice is the primary positive *feedback* mechanism causes the planet to swing in and out ice ages. CO2 is a bit player that provides some additional feedback. The trigger is the orbital variations.

The models he cited were right.

If they were right why does the IPCC keep releasing 'new and improved' models? Basically all he implied was models said was temps would go up and they did. They had a 50-50 chance of being correct by that metric. However, if you dig into them and look at the difference between the actual warming and the predicted warming you will find a significant gap unless you cherry pick your start date to be around the time of cooling caused by Mt Pinatubo. In this case, the trend is exagerrated because of the temporary cooling caused by Pinatubo. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

You are missing my point. I said that melting/forming ice is the primary positive *feedback* mechanism causes the planet to swing in and out ice ages. CO2 is a bit player that provides some additional feedback. The trigger is the orbital variations.

The two main causes of warming and cooling are the Sun and CO2, orbital variations can be caculated so can be explained. He talks about this in his 5 video and does a better job than I could here.But one thing I've noticed is that nearly every graph shown in this thread only shows CO2 and ignores the energy of the sun.

If they were right why does the IPCC keep releasing 'new and improved' models? Basically all he implied was models said was temps would go up and they did. They had a 50-50 chance of being correct by that metric. However, if you dig into them and look at the difference between the actual warming and the predicted warming you will find a significant gap unless you cherry pick your start date to be around the time of cooling caused by Mt Pinatubo. In this case, the trend is exagerrated because of the temporary cooling caused by Pinatubo.

Because everything can be improved. It goes something like this

"According to our models the temperature should go up X degrees in Y years."

Y years later

"Well the temperature went up but by Z not X so now we have to find what we missed that explains that so are next model can be more accurate"

It sounds like you are mad at scientist for making sure their data is as accurate as possible.

[Riverwind]

The two main causes of warming and cooling are the Sun and CO2, orbital variations can be caculated so can be explained.

What do you mean by 'causes'? The triggers or the feedbacks? If you are talking about the triggers changes in the ocean and clouds can cause warming and cooling too. As can the movement of continents and volcanos. When it comes to feedbacks there are many feedback mechanisms that contributed to ice ages - CO2 is only one. ice albedo feeback is the most significant. Ocean currents, clouds, water vapour, vegetation are others.

It sounds like you are mad at scientist for making sure their data is as accurate as possible.

I was reacting to the implication in the video that the models are right therefore everything he said about CO2 must be right. We are no where close to having that kind of confidence in the models although it does seem taht the people who build them tend to have overly optimistic opinions on their reliability. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind