Climategate Options

[lunk]

...and i thought it only reigned in England.

[lunk]

(IMG:http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i295/sedman/_47061196_greatbritainjpg.jpg)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm

Weather is not climate but it sure is funny.

One of the places where it usually rains.
Now, if they were to cover this with a fine layer of black coal soot,
it may melt quicker.

[Omega892R09]

Weather is not climate but it sure is funny.

Hey cobber!

Which, considering that at the least this is causing misery for many but death and injury for others you may like to reconsider that statement.

But I guess I should be pleasec that at last you have managed to differentiate between weather and climate.

Now for climate change v global warming?

[Omega892R09]

... if they were to cover this with a fine layer of black coal soot,
it may melt quicker.

Now particulates in the atmosphere could be one of the reasons why the continental polar (Cp) airstream off of mainland China is colder than normal and causing ol' Sanders to shiver. That and the cooler than average water temperature of the stream working its way down from the Bering Sea.

Funny thing that, when ice melts into water the water chills. Maybe that is why ice is put into drinks.

[Omega892R09]

If one hadn't noticed, it's snowing. Record cold. Everywhere.

No. Most certainly not everywhere.

Some places that should be having winter are suffering prolonged heat waves and drought, like Jerusalem.


Besides this debunks your statement:

Met Office: “It is not cold everywhere in the world.”

This chart from that article indicates the FACTS and explains my statement referring to you in a reply to lunk.

(IMG:http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Global-SST-1-10.gif)

We should be in a new solar cycle but the sun is still silent.

That isn't true either, see:

The hottest decade ends and since there’s no Maunder mininum — sorry deniers! — the hottest decade begins

2009 ends with a "sunspot surge" as solar cycle 24 revs up, though the sun is increasingly a bit player in the global warming trend

That is the trouble with FACTS, they tend to get in the way of a good story and cause propaganda to be exposed as the BS it is.

You are cold. It's winter. What else should you expect.

Heck I can recall winters colder than this and heavier snow falls. Back end of 1962 I was cycling 3 miles into work every day tro start a 05:30 shift and watching each day as the frost thickened on tree branches and all the time listening for the starting crack-crack-crack that warned of impending danger from falling, ice laden, tree branches. Early the next year I had just joined up and found myself doing Ten-Tors on Dartmoor in some of the most atrocious weather since the big falls of snow in 1947. That 47 event was followed by a well remembered drought as reservoirs dried out a cracked up - there being a repeat of this in 1976.

With global warming comes disturbances in the various climatic areas of the world. When a complex system is perturbed then oscillations around a new mean tend to increase until they settle down in a new equilibrium state (as those familiar with control systems know only too well). This, seeing as we are continuing to add CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere in increasing amounts each year will not happen. Even if emissions were held for 10 too 20 years it could still take centuries for the variability to play out.

As for you being colder than usual, what is your Lat' and Long'? Your position and local terrain would help in assessing as to why.

[Omega892R09]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...n_sunspots2.pdf

We sure do live in interesting times.

Yes, particularly if you ignore the BS from WUWT and bother to study the science, then things look very troubling.

As for the science try this:

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.

On-line interactive computer models allow you to play with the physics and chemistry behind the global warming forecast.

We are now posting video lectures by David Archer from a core class for non-science majors, Fall Quarter, 2009, University of Chicago.

Download and watch the video lectures available there and also study the book - you will then have helped yourself be an independent thinker free of the malign influences of the FOX media, and other MSM and Blog, pundits.

I wish APGW was a hoax, but it is not and the sooner people stop paying attention to agenda driven cranks like AWatts the better.

Don't let yourself be influenced by the discredited Watts (and ignore Ian Plimer too) as these should warn:

Unscientific America, Part 1: From the moon-landing deniers to WattsUpWithThat

and now this on your very own Ian Plimer (funded by fossil fuel although he doesn't like you to know that):

Plimer exposed as a fraud
I watched the interview and if I were one of you APGW deniers I would be trying to walk away right now.

[lunk]

Yes it is winter, and the temperature here has been cold,
it's only hovering around freezing, at the moment.
The coldest temperature i ever measured here,
was almost as low as -40. (Either temperature scale)
And that was back in '95/96.

Mom, was raised on a farm in Saskatchewan,
she tells me of temperatures there,
that were even colder than this.
We are sort of prepared for cold winters here.

But if anything like this,
was to happen in the mid US,
where the winters are not that cold,
where everybody has been prepared and
preparing for the expected global warming for years...

[maturin42]

Whether the man-made climate change danger is real is an important question. Whether anything we do will have an effect on global temperature trends is another important question. A few pilfered emails that seem to indicate less than scrupulous adherence to the ethical standards that ought to apply to any serious science isn't enough to make me jump into bed with those who have been proven liars on the payroll of Exxon Mobile and big oil and coal. While I must admit that my confidence is shaken (which has been the goal of the latter during this entire debate) now is the time to demand some clarity. Deteriorating ice shelves in the Antarctic demand some explanation. Good science has to be applied and the scientists who may have falsified or distorted data to bolster an agenda must be called to account. My first commitment has been and remains to the wise and frugal use of resources that are finite and to minimize the impact of humankind on the very ecological systems upon which we and those who share the globe with us ultimately depend. The disappearance of coral reefs, acquatic and land species, and rain forests are serious matters no matter what is happening with sunspots. Pollution has effects that are not good for anyone. You only have to dive on a dying coral reef and compare it to a healthy one that is remote and thus relatively unaffected by our impact on the bodies of water near which we live to see where our 6.5 billion people multiplying rapidly is taking us.

It is a question for honest science, not politics, and the corporate shills who are paid to throw as much dust as possible in the eyes of science in order to preserve doubt about the question so their being called to account have nothing to contribute, and they pollute the debate just as they have poisoned our environment. I live near what was termed in my lifetime the "greatest protein factory in the world", the world's largest estuary. It is almost dead. Huge dead zones appear each summer. Oysters barely survive, and its bounty of shell-fish, crabs, and other species is dangerous to those who eat too much of the ones they can catch, due to mercury. This body of water is one of the most "protected" anywhere, but it doesn't compensate for the impact of the increase of the population in the watershed.

The 9/11 community is evidence driven. Let's demand honesty and downplay the politics of these questions. I will be relieved if the global warming predictions are overstated but it won't cause me to go out and buy an SUV or cease to support solar and wind energy or conservation.

This post has been edited by maturin42: Jan 9 2010, 03:25 PM

[Timothy Osman]

Hey cobber!

Which, considering that at the least this is causing misery for many but death and injury for others you may like to reconsider that statement.

But I guess I should be pleasec that at last you have managed to differentiate between weather and climate.

Now for climate change v global warming?

No I won't reconsider it as it was aimed directly at you, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist an attempted low blow in a limp wristed response. You're the one and only person I know of that actually believes he's about to disappear in a cloud of smoke due to the corrupt science sponsored by a criminal elite desperate for a taxation nucleus for their new rung on the world control ladder.

The fact is there is no science from your side and in particular you, all you bring is politics and personal attacks, the fundamental question of whether Co2, the molecule at the centre of the AGW hypothesis is responsible for global warming is the whole point. This is the point at which your arguments collapse, they searched desperately for the signature and found nothing, no hot spot. They searched desperately through other proxy data like ice cores and found that co2 lags temperature, the actual reverse of the fraudsters claim.
Every single hurdle those behind this fraud have put up has been not only cleared convincingly but has led to revelations and scientific findings contrary to them. The hurdles or claims by alarmists have become so absurd and shrill as the fraud has unravelled that those actually still putting forward the ridiculous claims look totally fucking stupid.
I ask you, how do you look?

[Timothy Osman]

Whether the man-made climate change danger is real is an important question. Whether anything we do will have an effect on global temperature trends is another important question. A few pilfered emails that seem to indicate less than scrupulous adherence to the ethical standards that ought to apply to any serious science isn't enough to make me jump into bed with those who have been proven liars on the payroll of Exxon Mobile and big oil and coal. While I must admit that my confidence is shaken (which has been the goal of the latter during this entire debate) now is the time to demand some clarity. Deteriorating ice shelves in the Antarctic demand some explanation. Good science has to be applied and the scientists who may have falsified or distorted data to bolster an agenda must be called to account. My first commitment has been and remains to the wise and frugal use of resources that are finite and to minimize the impact of humankind on the very ecological systems upon which we and those who share the globe with us ultimately depend. The disappearance of coral reefs, acquatic and land species, and rain forests are serious matters no matter what is happening with sunspots. Pollution has effects that are not good for anyone. You only have to dive on a dying coral reef and compare it to a healthy one that is remote and thus relatively unaffected by our impact on the bodies of water near which we live to see where our 6.5 billion people multiplying rapidly is taking us.

It is a question for honest science, not politics, and the corporate shills who are paid to throw as much dust as possible in the eyes of science in order to preserve doubt about the question so their being called to account have nothing to contribute, and they pollute the debate just as they have poisoned our environment. I live near what was termed in my lifetime the "greatest protein factory in the world", the world's largest estuary. It is almost dead. Huge dead zones appear each summer. Oysters barely survive, and its bounty of shell-fish, crabs, and other species is dangerous to those who eat too much of the ones they can catch, due to mercury. This body of water is one of the most "protected" anywhere, but it doesn't compensate for the impact of the increase of the population in the watershed.

The 9/11 community is evidence driven. Let's demand honesty and downplay the politics of these questions. I will be relieved if the global warming predictions are overstated but it won't cause me to go out and buy an SUV or cease to support solar and wind energy or conservation.

You're exactly right and you might not be too happy to know that I agree with every point you raised. All I want is the opportunity as a man is to face actual problems like a man. I want my scientists to report their findings dispassionately and for those findings to be reviewed dispassionately. Maybe if anything at all good comes out of this affair it's that scientists will learn to become truth seekers again and not allow themselves to become corporate and government whores. OK that's not possible but at least we might end up with a new system of review where fake consensus and agenda driven science will be exposed. There should be zero tolerance for scientific agenda's beyond the fact based truth, whatever their flavour.

[Omega892R09]

A few pilfered emails that seem to indicate less than scrupulous adherence to the ethical standards that ought to apply to any serious science isn't enough to make me jump into bed with those who have been proven liars on the payroll of Exxon Mobile and big oil and coal.

I am heartened to hear that particularly as it has been shown that those pilfered emails only show scientific dishonesty when viewed through the distorting lens of the MSM as exemplified by the FOX pundits and those few disgruntled scientists that they wheel out. The long litany of shame is becoming familiar. Such scientists are often disgruntled in some way as later research corrects their false assumptions about aspects of the atmosphere, case in point being Christie and his conclusions WRT atmospheric temperatures as recorded by satellites.

While I must admit that my confidence is shaken (which has been the goal of the latter during this entire debate) now is the time to demand some clarity.

Clarity has been restored, if you ignore the blowhards that is, as these articles show. The following are intend only as starting points for your own further exploration of associated links as desired:

The CRU hack: Context

Each and every one of the charges touted has been thoroughly debunked with more here:

On those stolen CRU emails

and here:

What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?

Now for the man, McIntyre, who seemingly couldn't find data hidden in plain sight:

McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics

I hope that will help somewhat to restore your confidence.

My intention is to point to sound scientific sources, as with my references above (in a reply to TO) to David Archer's lectures and learning material.

I only get, indirectly, political when pointing out who the shills are being encouraged by CATO, CEI, Heartland, GCMI etc., in other words those with a long list of oily/dusty backers.

This book goes a long way to expose those trying to hold back politics by influencing public opinion:

(IMG:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/4030629496_7c6ee64d32.jpg)

Climate Cover-Up

It informs why, and how, Monckton et. al. are going the rounds accusing young climate change activists of being 'Hitler Youth'. On one of the youngsters informing the errant 'Lord' that he was of Jewish extraction there was no apology forthcoming from the 'august' peer.

The 9/11 community is evidence driven. Let's demand honesty and downplay the politics of these questions. I will be relieved if the global warming predictions are overstated but it won't cause me to go out and buy an SUV or cease to support solar and wind energy or conservation.

Absolutely agree.

And I am attempting to show where commentators here can go for the scientific evidence on which my opinion is based.

EDIT:

Thought I would include this one:

Patrick Michaels and Cato keep repeating an egregious falsehood about Michael Mann and the stolen emails

Michaels is on video record warning either an Heartland or CATO audience to not keep going on about a recent period of cooling because, as he points out, with the sun about to break out from a solar minimum, they will have egg on their faces. This does not appear to have filtered through Monckton's thick skin.

PS. I appreciate only too well that there are many other forms of pollution that we should worry about and any oceanographer will be able to point to many.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 10 2010, 12:17 PM

[Omega892R09]

No I won't reconsider it as it was aimed directly at you,

Which confirms my view of you.

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist an attempted low blow in a limp wristed response.

If it were limp wristed why the vitriol?

You're the one and only person I know of that actually believes he's about to disappear in a cloud of smoke due to the corrupt science sponsored by a criminal elite desperate for a taxation nucleus for their new rung on the world control ladder.

Come down off the ceiling at start thinking rationally.

The fact is there is no science from your side and in particular you, all you bring is politics and personal attacks, the fundamental question of whether Co2, the molecule at the centre of the AGW hypothesis is responsible for global warming is the whole point. This is the point at which your arguments collapse, they searched desperately for the signature and found nothing, no hot spot. They searched desperately through other proxy data like ice cores and found that co2 lags temperature, the actual reverse of the fraudsters claim.

No science on my side! You do me a grave injustice since I went to the trouble to provide you in reply to your post at #45!

I'll repeat, as you clearly missed it first time around:

As for the science try this:

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.

On-line interactive computer models allow you to play with the physics and chemistry behind the global warming forecast.

We are now posting video lectures by David Archer from a core class for non-science majors, Fall Quarter, 2009, University of Chicago.

Download and watch the video lectures available there and also study the book - you will then have helped yourself to be an independent thinker free of the malign influences of the FOX media, and other MSM and Blog, pundits.

You will understand how molecules of CO2 interact with certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum and cause the temperature at the earth's surface to rise so as to reach a heat exchange equilibrium. You will also meet the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

You may like to review the many other comments I have made whilst you were away they are chock full of science references and quotes etc.

OK. Cobber. For your benefit, you may find these of value:

Atmosphere, Weather and Climate
There is an 8th edition available from Amazon.co.uk, my copy, of the 4th 1982 edition is rather long in the tooth as the loose pages indicate.

Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach

The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate (Science Essentials) (Hardcover)

and covering the essentials accurately but more graphicaly, aimed at a younger readership perhaps:

Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming

a book on oceanography is a good background primer, there are many others I could suggest:

Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science

if you want the truth then books by:

Spencer, Booker, Singer, Lomborg, Solomon, Horner are best avoided as a look at this book with its risk assesment strategy will show:

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate

which revolves not so much around science as it does logic.

Every single hurdle those behind this fraud have put up has been not only cleared convincingly but has led to revelations and scientific findings contrary to them.

Examples?

The hurdles or claims by alarmists have become so absurd and shrill as the fraud has unravelled that those actually still putting forward the ridiculous claims look totally fucking stupid.

I see that your attitude has not improved any since the last time we met around here.

I ask you, how do you look?

I don't particularly care about how I look but I do care about truth.

Now quoting from you at #39:

'Weather is not climate but it sure is funny.'

I replied:

'Which, considering that at the least this is causing misery for many but death and injury for others you may like to reconsider that statement.'

and your response as at the head of this reply was:

'No I won't reconsider it as it was aimed directly at you,'

Now you should ask yourself how you look.

The truth is that there is so much solid scientific evidence that supports the reality of APGW, and see the Archer ref's and others above for understanding the basics.

[lunk]

Just from reading through many of the climate-gate emails' i get the impression that all inquiry was quashed or ridiculed,
facts were altered, to fit the presumption.
And even reports, contrary to the presumption,
are generally ignored, by the main stream media.

The sciences, in academics (and probably all studies)
cannot have corporate, or special interest groups,
donating to them, even indirectly, through government.

The acquisition of knowledge,
(not just the regurgitation of other peoples' theories,)
must be open to everybody,
and to the interest of every individual.

I feel there is so much more to know,
to build on, to know, to build on...

[Timothy Osman]

Omega you put way too much faith in forecasts, they're not facts they are in fact forecasts based on computer models. As science goes these sorts of things are used primarily as tools used in the process of forming a hypothesis, the science comes after and is considered to be the actual part that matters by most people. This is where the theory of AGW falls down, we here have said it time and time again, the science as in observation and physical experiment have completely failed to back up the hypothesis seen in the models.
What science there was in support of AGW was being conducted by the hockeystick team from the CRU, a small group of scientists who colluded to destroy data, to ignore freedom of information requestsand basically bullshit everyone into being believers. A little hockey team who reviewed each others papers and were in positions in which they had access to policy makers and actual temperature data. For the uninitiated here is a video where Dr. Tim Ball explains it more clearly than I can possibly type out as it's just an information overload. Anything I do type will just be subject to snark anyway.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLtq3gT2-1w...layer_embedded#

[Timothy Osman]

Here's the dirt on Tim Ball the bastard denialist, pre-emptively.

Timothy F. Ball
Ball and the oil industry
Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS).

Ball is also listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.

DeSmog recently uncovered information showing that two of the founding directors of the NRSP are lobbyists for the energy sector.

Ball and the oil industry
In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the Friends of Science admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature, FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding this fact. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

Ball inflates credentials
Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball.

Ball and the NRSP
Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”

Ball's research history
Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996. A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that over the course of his career Ball published four pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

Ball sues researcher and Calgary Herald newspaper
On September 1st, Ball launched a libel suit against Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge and a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems. Here are the original Statements of Claim and Defence.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

He's an evil mongrel according to this. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Here's the dirt on Tim Ball the bastard denialist, pre-emptively.
He's an evil mongrel according to this. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

You pointed that out and who am I to disagree.

I knew about that already as it happened and would have led you there anyway.

He has an agenda Tim and it does not coincide with your best interests.

You would also gain from a look at:

SourceWatch

and run searches on names such as Cato, Heartland, CEI, GCMI etc.

Visit Heartland and view the lists of speakers at conferences over the last few years and note names of a few disgruntled scientists.

Of course Monckton is on there too.

Then Google on Christie, Lindzen, the Soon, Baliunis, Idso quartet.

And remember, why is it FOX pundits like too wheel out these contraians and deniers?

[Omega892R09]

Omega you put way too much faith in forecasts, they're not facts they are in fact forecasts based on computer models.

There writes a man who clearly has little grasp of how climate models are constructed a run and how they vary by using different proxy data for example. Read some of the texts that I have indicated and look here:

FAQ on climate models

Climate models are 'broadly' in agreement as to future scenarios but there is disagreement amongst scientists on how well they cater for the actions of feedback mechanisms. Indeed this is the area that caused the most dissent within the IPCC as some scientists considered the projections too conservative, in other words things could turn out much worse if there was unanticipated coupling of feedbacks or self amplification of some feedbacks (I have seen this happen in human engineered control systems). This is particularly true of the coupling of CO2 and water vapour. Aerosols are another area of uncertainty.

James Lovelock is worth reading for more background on feedbacks and aerosols, the source of some may surprise you.

Indeed the recent discovery of a far worse state of affairs WRT Arctic Sea Ice is a case in point.

No scientist has ever claimed that the science is settled, contrary to what you may pick up in the MSM. Science reporting has declined in quality as staffing cyts take place, lead editors move from the NYT to the Washington Post and the ever dumbing down effect of sound-bites.

Please try and study some of the titles I have suggested, or works of similar ilk which may be available locally.

It does involve some effort, I have put in some and continue to do so. I am in the process of dusting off my stats and calculus which took a hit due to oxygen privation with cardiac arrests a few years back. My old Uni' notes help here.

Public libraries over here have been dumbed down somewhat, so good books are not so easy to locate outside of academia. I think this is intentional. A well informed general public is a danger to some who wish to preserve their profligate way of life.

[Omega892R09]

Just from reading through many of the climate-gate emails' i get the impression that all inquiry was quashed or ridiculed,
facts were altered, to fit the presumption.
And even reports, contrary to the presumption,
are generally ignored, by the main stream media.

Your sources were?

The examples you have in mind are?

[GroundPounder]

Your sources were?

The examples you have in mind are?

have you done no reading of your own man? the scandal of climategate? ring any bells?

we've had over 1200 record snowfall and low temps set here in the us between dec30-jan6. that is real data...no computer models necessary. anything like that happening in the uk?

you just seem so adamant. if we were to experience another ice age, what would you say then? and don't shape shift the argument from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.

[Omega892R09]

have you done no reading of your own man? the scandal of climategate? ring any bells?

Hey! Don't kick off like that on me pal for if you had paid attention to any of my posts you would realize that I have done considerable reading.

lunk only seems to write in generalities I simply wished him to be specific for a change.

The real scandle is in how the MSM, and other, blowhards have taken stuff out of context and lied, yes lied.

Or are have you suddenly chosen to support FOX pundits just because it fits in with your cognitive dissonance.