ClimateGate and the Climatati

[wyly]

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.

because the sun's energy output has been low and temps rose regardless so the sun has not been causing the warming... and neither is the Milankovitch cycle to blame because the warming is happening far to quickly...that only leaves CO2...

[wyly]

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.

oh the IRONY!!!

[Riverwind]

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.

It is a lot more than embarrasing statements. Here is what George Monbiot - a well known alarmist had to say:

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

Its no use pretending that this isnt a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and Im dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Now, I disagree with Monbiot because he wants to blame it all on Jones and sweep it under the rug. I don't. We need a public inquiry.

In any case, you really should be asking yourself what if science has been rigged by a core of religious zealots in positions of power that allow them shutdown debate by intimidating other scientists? What if the 'consensus' is, in fact, manufactured? Won't you like to know that before governments waste trillions on a non-problem?

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

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.

I mean the things that effect the temperature the most. In comparison Ocean current, clouds, water vapour, and vegetation is nothing. Ocean current might heat up one place but don't effect the earths overall temperature. Clouds don't last forever and unless the entire earth was covered don't have that noticable of an effect. Water vapour cycles out of the atmosphere pretty fast ( a point you made I believe) and is a lagging indicator. I've never heard of any effect because of vegetation. And Ice Albedo is also a lagging indicator, it is a problem because snow melts earlier which was caused by global warming to begin with. Which I think highlights Potholer54's point nicely, that a small increase in temperature will lead to a large increase in temperature.

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.

I thought the video made the point that they were sometimes inaccurate. Maybe that was the second video.

Edited November 27, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

because the sun's energy output has been low and temps rose regardless so the sun has not been causing the warming... and neither is the Milankovitch cycle to blame because the warming is happening far to quickly...that only leaves CO2...

Or clouds, or oceans or land use/vegetation changes. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

because the sun's energy output has been low and temps rose regardless so the sun has not been causing the warming... and neither is the Milankovitch cycle to blame because the warming is happening far to quickly...that only leaves CO2...

Both are the reason. Ignoring the suns effect is like ignoring the blazing fire in the hearth then turning the electric heaters on full bore and then wondering why it gets so hot.

And the sun has been getting brighter over the years that's what stars do as they age.

Edited November 27, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Riverwind]

I mean the things that effect the temperature the most. In comparison Ocean current, clouds, water vapour, and vegetation is nothing.

No way. A 10% change in average cloud cover would completely cancel the effect of all of the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. Same with vegetation changes. Ice retreats exposes bare land it will be cooler. As trees grow it will heat up.

Also, water vapour is a huge effect - much larger than CO2. But is a mostly a feedback since we don't know if the relative humidity changes on its own. When people talk about CO2 causing 3 degC of warnming - 2 degC of that comes from water vapour feedback - not CO2.

What that means is water vapour feedback amplies anything that causes warming. So if the sun causes a little but of warming it will increase the water vapour which results in even more warming.

I've never heard of any effect because of vegetation.

Becuase all of the alarmist material you have been reading ignores the work of Roger Pielke Sr. Vegetation changes can have a significant effect on temperature.

And Ice Albedo is also a lagging indicator, it is a problem because snow melts earlier which was caused by global warming to begin with.

We are talking past each other. During the ice ages CO2 lags - because the orbital variations start the warming. What I am saying is his presentation was misleading because he ignored the effect of things like ice-albedo feedback which is the major feedback that amplifies the orbital variations. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

No way. A 10% change in average cloud cover would completely cancel the effect of all of the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. Same with vegetation changes. Ice retreats exposes bare land it will be cooler. As trees grow it will heat up.

A 10% increase in average cloud cover is about as likely to happen as the earth's average temp climbing by 10 degrees next month. As ice retreats many things will happen don't just focus on the land that will be uncovered, some land will also end up covered in water, and the Ice isn't retreating at that great a rate anyway.

Becuase all of the alarmist material you have been reading ignores the work of Roger Pielke Sr. Vegetation changes can have a significant effect on temperature.

I read science journels but I haven't come across this. Got a Link?

We are talking past each other. During the ice ages CO2 lags - because the orbital variations start the warming. What I am saying is his presentation was misleading because he ignored the effect of things like ice-albedo feedback which is the major reason for the flips in and out of the ice ages.

CO2 is no longer a lagging indicator. Orbital variations can both start warming or end it, and can be made completely irrelevant by the output of the sun, there have been times when the suns temp should caused an Ice age on earth and there wasn't and other times when it should have been very hot on the earth but it wasn't. All of that was caused by CO2.

Everything I've read says that the Ice-albedo effect is a postive feedback device and lagging indicator, temp starts to cool, more ice forms, snow covers the ice, temp cools more, more ice forms, more snow on the ice, temp cools more, etc or conversely, temp starts to rise, snow melts, ice melts, temp warms, more snow melts, more ice melts, temp warms, etc. but the temp always has to start to cool or warm first before this happens. So the Ice-Albedo effect is in no way responsible for flips in and out of ice ages.

[Riverwind]

A 10% increase in average cloud cover is about as likely to happen as the earth's average temp climbing by 10 degrees next month.

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.

Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and climatologically significant increases in the Earth’s reflectance from the outset of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid- 2000. After that and to date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years. Using satellite cloud data and Earth reflectance models, we also show that the decadal scale changes in Earth’s reflectance measured by earthshine are reliable, and caused by changes in the properties of clouds rather than any spurious signal, such as changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry.”

Incidently, this data on albedo supports Roy Spencer's theory 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?

Everything I've read says that the Ice-albedo effect is a postive feedback device and lagging indicator.

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. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

It is a lot more than embarrasing statements. Here is what George Monbiot - a well known alarmist had to say:

Now, I disagree with Monbiot because he wants to blame it all on Jones and sweep it under the rug. I don't. We need a public inquiry.

In any case, you really should be asking yourself what if science has been rigged by a core of religious zealots in positions of power that allow them shutdown debate by intimidating other scientists? What if the 'consensus' is, in fact, manufactured? Won't you like to know that before governments waste trillions on a non-problem?

It's pretty hard to cook up a conspiracy in an open environment, where the facts are debated for all to see. However, fair enough. Who would you want to head up a public inquiry though ? A UK Government agency ? They wouldn't have any teeth to do anything about this. The university would, and so would scientists but I don't think you want them looking into this do you ?

[Topaz]

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

[Goat Boy©]

cost won't be an issue if we doing nothing as you propose to save money, money will have no value and we won't have a civilization...

Not going to happen. There may be parts of the world that have problems but human civilization will be fine.

That is one hell of a statement. Especially coming from a guy who posted in the same thread that we really don't know what will happen, and need to do more research prior to directing massive amounts of resources.

To put that in context, my own positions are:

-The global warming campaign is alarmist.

-Al Gore needs to shut up and be banned from media.

-The human race has "conclusively proven" something many times only to have it thrown out.

-The current carbon campaign is tunnel vision, potentially ignoring other and far larger problems.

-The current carbon campaign is ineffective regardless of reasoning, population growth will account for any gains made. It is not possible to return to 1990 levels of emissions without accounting for the pop growth rate as well as the 2 billion extra breathing bodies on the planet, as well as drastically reducing human standards of living which has not happened.

-These guys should be put on the stand and punished appropriately. I also hope that they are sued to account for damages should they be found guilty.

I still think we're rendering this place uninhabitable for our future generations, we're just monumentally conceited to think that we understand how we're doing it, and how to prevent it.

Worst case global warming is the planet Venus:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/29/xin_39211042916580153004524.jpg

Which is also possible however unlikely.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Goat Boy©]

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...

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589

Off topic, start a new one if need be.

[Goat Boy©]

because the sun's energy output has been low and temps rose regardless so the sun has not been causing the warming... and neither is the Milankovitch cycle to blame because the warming is happening far to quickly...that only leaves CO2...

The Sun increases in both size and intensity every year.

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

[Keepitsimple]

I find it deeply troubling....even scary that Climategate (for sake of a better term) has not made it into the mainstream on a regular basis - CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail. It doesn't really matter what side of the argument you're on - this is big, big news. The scary part is that it seems to confirm that there is so much money, so much government, so much power behind the issue that the MSM is somehow muzzled by it. Look at the coverage that hearsay evidence from Richard Colvin gets.....they want to see emails that are not yet public.....and yet here we have the biggest issue "facing mankind" and we have emails in the public domain and yet we have near silence. We all have seen the damage caused to governments through "leaked" emails.....the reaction is cut-throat and immediate. Why not now? Very troubling.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

It's pretty hard to cook up a conspiracy in an open environment, where the facts are debated for all to see.

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.

However, fair enough. Who would you want to head up a public inquiry though?

The British and American governments fund these agencies. They can set up whatever enquires they want. Nigel Lawson is a level headed sceptic in the UK. Senate Inhofe in the US has already started some hearings there. Canada could set up its own inquiry if Canadian scientists end up getting implicated.

But the first step is acknowledging is there is a problem here and the full extent of it needs to be rooted out.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

Pliny, if you have anything other than a Straw Man... I will/might respond with more... than this.

Sorry, that's all I have.

One must always look to the human motivation, the goals and objectives of not only individuals but of organizations and how those motivations align. It is always in the interests of the individual to improve his life, to improve his ability to sustain himself. It makes things like education and health important. We would all like to be educated and healthy. It's an easy sell. So is the environment. We have to all collectively look after, education, health care and the environment to sustain ourselves and we can all agree to collectively make the worst offenders, the rich, pay for it. Why the rich? Firstly, because they have the means. The poor cannot be bled. Secondly because they are the most active and by that definition, must be the worst polluters and highest consumers of energy. The poor don't do very much. Their highest value is in being presented as victims of the rich.

So what do we see as the motivational interests of individuals and organizations aligned to save the environment? How can one possibly attempt to accomplish the goal of an unpolluted environment? An unpolluted environment firstly has to be defined and that has been encapsulated in our "carbon footprint". Ultimately, I think we can see where this is heading. We are carbon-oxygen machines basically and we produce carbon dioxide just by breathing. No one has mentioned it yet but soon someone will bring it up from a scientific perspective and we will be taxed for our mere existence and the use of the air.

You are involved in the specifics of the science and although you are not a scientist yourself you align with scientists and their claims because their motivations cannot be doubted, as surely as the motivations of the infallible Pope in a time not so long ago could not be doubted. There was no room for debate then and there is no room for debate now. Al Gore has proclaimed himself the new Pope - infallible and omniscient.

You have certainly excluded me from any contribution to the debate. It seems I only have a straw man to present. You have limited the debate to be only about science and only a discussion from the viewpoint of science. Science is actually the straw man in the greater scheme of things. It is a limited point of view and provides a focal point of distraction when one considers on the whole what is at stake. Are we limited and restricted from discussion because we are not talking about the science? Yes, only Christians can discuss Christ and only scientists can discuss the environment. We must only be unquestioning followers.

What is at stake? It is definitely the future of the planet, how it will be managed and how human civilization will be engineered. It is my objective to point out that we need to exercise extreme caution in the evaluation of what is necessary to our continued existence especially in the granting of political powers and the concentration of such in the hands of only a few. We have witnessed throughout history the tyranny of such concentrations of power. When I see national governments relinquishing sovereignty to a global authority I cannot help but signal the alarm bells. Is our greatest threat from the environment or from ourselves and the pettiness of a few power-mongers?

I am not an advocate of conspiracy theories. The plan for the planet is plain for everyone to see. It is all in the open. Science is the new ministry, replete with frocked and sequestered priests, adorned Bishops, an intellectual heirarchy and the supreme Al Gore - keep in mind - God is dead. No authority challenges us. All Al wants is what everyone else wants, a better life for himself, his family, his friends and his associates. Well, if you can find it in your heart to recognize him as the savior of the planet then he will be humbled by that truth - and remember he invented the internet also. Praise, the almighty! Amen.

[Michael Hardner]

I find it deeply troubling....even scary that Climategate (for sake of a better term) has not made it into the mainstream on a regular basis - CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail. It doesn't really matter what side of the argument you're on - this is big, big news. The scary part is that it seems to confirm that there is so much money, so much government, so much power behind the issue that the MSM is somehow muzzled by it. Look at the coverage that hearsay evidence from Richard Colvin gets.....they want to see emails that are not yet public.....and yet here we have the biggest issue "facing mankind" and we have emails in the public domain and yet we have near silence. We all have seen the damage caused to governments through "leaked" emails.....the reaction is cut-throat and immediate. Why not now? Very troubling.

There are some structural reasons for this, I think. One is that there's a lot of data to go through. They will need to get a response from the parties involved, and that takes time. Also, the data seems to have been obtained illegally, so some may refuse to respond based on that.

Secondly, the nature of academia is that the information is open so it's going to be hard to establish that individual misdeeds are characteristic of the whole movement.

Thirdly, the process itself is not designed to be political, but objective. So if you're looking for a 'gotcha' type exposé the system can't give that to you.

Even this article from the National Post (FP) on the matter uses the necessary academic language, and thus calls for 'modest and mundane' measures - sharing of data.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

[Riverwind]

I find it deeply troubling....even scary that Climategate (for sake of a better term) has not made it into the mainstream on a regular basis - CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail. It doesn't really matter what side of the argument you're on - this is big, big news.

I know - this really scares me more than anything else. I have sent several emails to different people at the G&M asking them politely why they are not covering the story - no response not even a 'thank you for your comment we will look into it'.

[Riverwind]

There are some structural reasons for this, I think. One is that there's a lot of data to go through. They will need to get a response from the parties involved, and that takes time. Also, the data seems to have been obtained illegally, so some may refuse to respond based on that.

Since when has the media cared about how information is obtained if they want to report it? Can you give me one example from the past? The fact that the legality is even raised as an issue demonstrates a considerable bias.

Secondly, the nature of academia is that the information is open so it's going to be hard to establish that individual misdeeds are characteristic of the whole movement.

That does not stop the media in other situations. All it takes is the hint of wrong doing and they are all over it. There is more than an hint of wrongdoing in this case.

Thirdly, the process itself is not designed to be political, but objective. So if you're looking for a 'gotcha' type exposé the system can't give that to you.

There has ZERO coverage - not one mention in the G&M or CBC. That is extreme bias.

Even this article from the National Post (FP) on the matter uses the necessary academic language, and thus calls for 'modest and mundane' measures - sharing of data.

You missed all of earlier articles by Lorne Gunter and Peter Foster. Here is a story by CBS which is a better example of the coverage that should have been provided. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shady]

I'm amazed that we still have people in this forum defending the dishonesty of the so-called scientists in question. I'm also amazed that we still have people accepting the now proven incorrect premise of man-made global warming. I guess they're the definition of true believers.

If these type of emails were discovered from scientists tied to the tabacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking, instead of these so-called scientists tied to global warming, can you imagine the media firestorm? And do you think the true believers in this thread would continue to defend them as meaningless information?

It's like trying to talk rationally with Jim Jones' followers.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

The British and American governments fund these agencies. They can set up whatever enquires they want. Nigel Lawson is a level headed sceptic in the UK. Senate Inhofe in the US has already started some hearings there. Canada could set up its own inquiry if Canadian scientists end up getting implicated.

But the first step is acknowledging is there is a problem here and the full extent of it needs to be rooted out.

Academic papers can be published, reviewed and judged on their own merits. There's no evil cabal that controls the minds of the world's scientists. Studies are funded by government and private industry.

What we do have is two separate forums: the public sphere and the academic sphere. The public sphere is completely open and mitigated by major media players. The academic sphere is closed to scientists, however both spheres are 'open' in that dissenting opinions are advanced and debated.

That doesn't mean we have perfect information, or perfect behavior by scientists (or the media), but the open nature of these forums should mean that good ideas generally rise up, and bad ideas generally fall down.

There are exceptions, such as the 'Free Silver' debacle that happened at the end of the 19th century in the US, where a significant portion of the US believed that Silver prices were causing farmers to suffer. But by and large the bad ideas do fall away.

An inquiry such as you mentioned would be initiated by public calls for inquiry. I'm all for it. Let's see if it happens.

[Goat Boy©]

I'm amazed that we still have people in this forum defending the dishonesty of the so-called scientists in question. I'm also amazed that we still have people accepting the now proven incorrect premise of man-made global warming. I guess they're the definition of true believers.

If these type of emails were discovered from scientists tied to the tabacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking, instead of these so-called scientists tied to global warming, can you imagine the media firestorm? And do you think the true believers in this thread would continue to defend them as meaningless information?

It's like trying to talk rationally with Jim Jones' followers.

I really don't believe that this proves or disproves man-made global warming at all. This says to me, some scientists responsible for collecting and collating data lied. The penalties for lying are unparalleled economic consequences, however it doesn't mean that the possibility of us changing the planet in a negative fashion is disproven.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Michael Hardner]

Since when has the media cared about how information is obtained if they want to report it? Can you give me one example from the past? The fact that the legality is even raised as an issue demonstrates a considerable bias.

I didn't say that the media wouldn't use the information, I said that some involved may refuse to comment because the information was obtained illegally.

That does not stop the media in other situations. All it takes is the hint of wrong doing and they are all over it. There is more than an hint of wrongdoing in this case.

There has ZERO coverage - not one mention in the G&M or CBC. That is extreme bias.

You missed all of earlier articles by Lorne Gunter and Peter Foster. Here is a story by CBS which is a better example of the coverage that should have been provided.

Sorry - you say Zero coverage, then provide links to NP, and CBS articles ?

[Keepitsimple]

I know - this really scares me more than anything else. I have sent several emails to different people at the G&M asking them politely why they are not covering the story - no response not even a 'thank you for your comment we will look into it'.

I just sent one to The Star this morning as well.