Climategate Options

[Omega892R09]

don't shape shift the argument from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.

Now if you had done any study at all of Atmosphere, Weather and Climate (go read that book by that title see above) you would appreciate the difference between weather and climate, besides I have described such here so many times.

Different parts of the world have different climates depending on proximity to ocean currents, mountain ranges and position with respect to prevailing winds, latitude, amongst other features. 'Atmosphere, Weather and Climate', contains tables of classification of climates.

I'll leave you to fully consider the differences and how overall global warming can cause climate change, reading some frigging books would be a good start.

[GroundPounder]

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.

first, we're not pals. second, reading and comprehending? and lastly, i question your cognitive function. you know nothing about me and claim i have cognitive dissonance.

and by all means, avoid the current weather in the uk question.

you've seen the burning bush and now you 'understand'..i'm humbled.

[Omega892R09]

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.

And your source for this is the likes of Tim Ball, he who vacillates about revealing his true academic qualifications and experience.

Don't be such a chump and believe everything that churns out of CATO, CEI, Heartland etc. and their agents.

Do you realize how many different studies using other forms of proxy data backed up the trend in Mann's 'hockey stick'?

No data was destroyed.

Reasonable Freedom of Information requests were not ignored.

Here we have some info:

First from here

The CRU hack - comments page 4

187Jay says:
20 November 2009 at 5:07 PMGavin-

When you say that this site is moderated only for noise, why have so many people including myself been censored when they ask a simple questions like….

Where can I find the raw data that the deniers keep claiming is being kept from them under the FOIA? Do they have rights to the data? Are the claims that the temperature data has been lost true?

Will this comment be classified as “noise”?

[Response: Claims that data has been destroyed or lost are untrue. Claims that there is no access to the raw temperature data are untrue. There is nothing in any of the CRU archives that is particularly special or noteworthy and that isn't mostly available to anyone already via NOAA. They got access to some extra data that some National Met. Services normally only sell, or was given with the express proviso that it not be passed on to third parties. CRU is not at fault for honoring those agreements - even if everyone wishes they didn't exist. The harassment of CRU people for doing so has been twisted into the meme you are channeling, that somehow they are hiding something nefarious. They aren't, but it might not be surprising that they become aggrieved when people keep repeating that falsehood. - gavin]

Where’s the data?

and

Data Sources

one of those making a noise about missing data was Steve McIntyre and it turns out he had the data, that he was pontificating about:

McIntyre had the data all along


Posted on: October 8, 2009 3:22 AM, by Tim Lambert (added emphasis mine)

One of McIntyre's repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa's Yamal #1:

A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa's website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000).

I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data.

This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller:

The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper.

But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith

When a reader asked him why he didn't just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell:

In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.

He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre's ability to make mountains out of molehills.

The only substantive point that McIntyre made was the sample size was small, but Deep Climate reports that you get the same results with a larger sample:

Now comes new evidence that McIntyre's accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa's Yamal temperature reconstruction.

Lastly I note that Andrew Bolt back from vacation has used Yamal to declare that:

Belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of existence.

For more McIntyreisms:

McIntyre article list

and please note this one:

Mcintyre misunderstood somehow. Yet again.
Category: McIntyre

A recent post by Steve McIntyre was widely interpreted as proving that global warming was a big hoax. McIntyre claims that he was misunderstood. How could this have happened yet again?

I bet you won't see any of that running through the denier echo chamber.

There is evidence that McIntyre bombarded climate scientists repeatedly with slightly amended FOI requests. What was he trying to do - hinder these scientists as another delaying tactic on the action that will eventually have to be taken?

There is a pattern of obfuscation and confusion emerging but do you now see from whence it is coming.

[Omega892R09]

and by all means, avoid the current weather in the uk question.

The current weather is just that, weather.

However it may turn out to be linked to the rapid ice loss in the Arctic and the consequent perturbations in the normal pattern of air currents, in which case, and I would not be in the least surprised, it would turn out to be yet another extreme weather event due to changing climate in turn due to global warming. A point I raised a few posts up.

But of course you didn't bother looking into any other posts above before shooting from the hip did you?

If you chose to deny the fact of APGW in the face of all the evidence, as FOX pundits do, then cognitive dissonance is a fair bet. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of that term. I'll illustrate.

Your house is on fire with heat and smoke getting to you but you wave away those warning you of the situation because you would rather have it not interrupt your favourite TV show so you continue to sit and watch and burn.

That is cognitive dissonance. The truth is too uncomfortable to deal with as it involves making adjustments to the way you live so you chose not to believe. That is a fair description going by your stance on this issue from what I have seen previously.

[lunk]

Hoard snowshoes and skin-diving equipment.
...and store some water, just in case.

[Timothy Osman]

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:

Thanks for clarifying, or confessing Omega. I should have written "should use climate models as tools to formulate a hypothesis", what you briefly describe is the horrible truth and was much better coming from you in the form of a confession.
These idiots actually do use their Playstations like that, it is the beginning and the end of all they do and It's no bloody wonder there is a huge divergence from what occurs on their Playstation screens and the actual hard cold reality. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

I had to go to work urgently so I'll add some more now.

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.

This in a another way of saying that there is no way in hell of ever expecting a Playstation or any other computer, no matter what you call it from ever in a million years having sufficient inputs to model something as complex as the planetary climate of Earth. However these models have been used to form policy and are weighted as if they are the empirical science I described. In reality all they can ever possibly do is display what it is the model developer wants to display, garbage in = garbage out.
What the climategate Emails and data have done is give an insight into what sort of scientists they have scurrying about collecting proxies for the computer games and why they got it so wrong. When you think about it they had to rewrite history their computer game got so out of control, the medieval warm period had to go along with the little ice age. The real climate history of the planet or the Northern bit had too many lumpy bits and was screwing up the visual impact of the game.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Jan 11 2010, 11:17 PM

[Timothy Osman]

I might as well post this here rather than starting another postathon even though It's not really on topic, it kind of beggars belief that this "climate scientist" can come out with this crapola now.

Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.

Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.

If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.

And now oceanic cycles have switched to a 'cold mode', where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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

Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles - known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs - could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.

Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. All this may well last two decades or longer.

'The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.'

Many meteorologists have blamed the current freeze on 'Arctic oscillation' - a weather pattern in which areas of high pressure have pushed the warming jetstream away from Britain. They have insisted this temporary change will have no effect on long-term warming patterns.

But another expert, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, said MDOs will continue to determine global temperatures.

He said: 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries. We have such a change now.'

So it looks like they predicted a cooling trend would start back in 2008, most people were kind of saying the trend started in 2007 so they're running true to form.

It just goes to show that we can't afford to listen to these crackpots who say they can predict, model, see or forecast the future. We have a pretty good understanding of the havoc the climate, the real changing climate has caused humanity over time. We should know from what has happened in the past that we need to be prepared for the worst and be prepared to defend ourselves from the climate and those bastards of Babylonian descent who enslave us with debt through usury.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...al-COOLING.html

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Jan 11 2010, 11:50 PM

[Omega892R09]

I might as well post this here rather than starting another postathon even though It's not really on topic, it kind of beggars belief that this "climate scientist" can come out with this crapola now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...al-COOLING.html

You have just fallen into a bear trap.

The Daily Mail, along with the echo chambers of FOX and WUWT, have lied to you. They have misrepresented Latif's findings, again as it happens - see below.

See here:

FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC
Extract, use link above for other illustrations and links:

Latif told me: "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up." NSIDC Director Serreze says it is "completely false."
January 11, 2010
30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says

Latif … says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures

Memo to media and anti-science disinformers (again): If your “global cooling” piece revolves around Dr. Latif, you probably have the entire story backwards. But, at least for the disinformers, that is the goal. And that goes double if the piece involves the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

In an interview back on October 1, Dr. Latif told me “we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015″ and “it is just as likely you’ll see accelerated warming” after then. Indeed, in his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the next two decades. He told me, “you can’t miss the long-term warming trend” in the temperature record, which is “driven by the evolution of greenhouse gases.” Finally, he pointed out “Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.”

In an interview today, he confirmed that he accepts the IPCC’s finding that most of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes — “definitely,” he said.

UPDATE: Latif spoke to the UK’s Guardian, apparently after we chatted and I emailed him the piece, see “Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday’s use of his research: Mojib Latif denies his research supports theory that current cold weather undermines scientific consensus on global warming.”

Latif remains puzzled and dismayed by articles like those in the Daily Mail, “Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?” that purport to be based on his work, that supposedly quote him directly, but in fact just make stuff up. Of course, the Daily Mail made up a lot stuff for this article, like this whopper about the NSIDC’s work:

(IMG:http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Daily-Mail.gif)

As NSIDC Director wrote me, “This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail. We hope that this is simply a case of very lazy journalism and nothing more.”

Now the DM has changed the story to read:

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a ‘warm mode’, and would have happened regardless of mankind’s rising carbon dioxide production.

Except, of course, those unnamed “some scientists” don’t exist, certainly Latif isn’t one of them.

But that doesn’t stop the anti-science crowd, led by Anthony Watts, from turning those falsehoods into unadulterated disinformation such as this gem today, “IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years?“ Writing of the recent cold snap that was limited to a small portion of the global, Watts falsely assets:

According to IPCC scientist Mojab Latif in an article for the Daily Mail, it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze. Latif is known as one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

Not even close, as I and Latif have said many times (see “interview with Dr. Mojib Latif, the man who confused the NY Times and New Scientist, the man who moved George Will and math-challenged Morano to extreme disinformation“). That’s isn’t what Latif said and not what he believes.

And that leads to the FoxNews story quoted up top, “30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says,” based solely on this game of telephone with Latif’s work. And of course The Swift Boat smearer and would-be Climate Killer excerpts this mangled and/or made up quote by the Daily Mail:

Shock Admission: UN IPCC’s Prof. Latif: ‘The warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles (ocean) – perhaps as much as 50%”

Not. Call Dr. Latif up and ask him if accepts the IPCC’s finding that, as he put it, most of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes. He had me reread the quotes attributed to him a number of times, asking twice, “those are direct quotes?” After I did, he said to me: “I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up.” I suggested asking reporters to read quotes back to him.

According to Latif, over a short time span, say, two decades, it’s hard to determine exactly what fraction of the temperature change is due to what cause, but Latif does not believe nor ever said what the Daily Mail suggests, which is that you can add those periods together and somehow negate the IPCC’s finding. His work simply “does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming.”

Latif has NOT predicted a cooling trend — or a “decades-long deep freeze” – but rather a short-time span where human-caused warming might be partly offset by ocean cycles, staying at current record levels, but then followed by “accelerated” warming where you catch up to the long-term human-caused trend. He does NOT forecast 2 or 3 decades of cooling.

Certainly Latif’s work can be baffling, but I mostly deciphered it on this blog in 2008 (see “Nature article on ‘cooling’ confuses media, deniers: Next decade may see rapid warming“). Latif’s Nature study is consistent with the following statements:

The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.

Here is a link to the green highlighted section in the above.

Exclusive interview with Dr. Mojib Latif, the man who confused the NY Times and New Scientist, the man who moved George Will and math-challenged Morano to extreme disinformation

Edit:
PS
I am glad that you brought this one up, but then I knew I could rely upon somebody doing this, as it is a CLASSIC example of why you should not believe what you read at WUWT and as for FOX I thought people around here already understood their game.

Also on climate modelling I note you still don't know what that is about and how it is carried out, your comments only serve to reveal your ignorance.

EDIT 2:

PPS
Looks like Sarah Palin could be joining FOX:

Sarah Palin signs on as a commentator with Fox News

you have been warned,

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 12 2010, 09:05 AM

[Sanders]

Ooooh, the world is getting so hot.

Excuse me while I return to my snow shoveling duties.

[Timothy Osman]

I am glad that you brought this one up, but then I knew I could rely upon somebody doing this, as it is a CLASSIC example of why you should not believe what you read at WUWT and as for FOX I thought people around here already understood their game.

Also on climate modelling I note you still don't know what that is about and how it is carried out, your comments only serve to reveal your ignorance.

What are you talking about? I posted an article from a MSM rag and even mentioned what twaddle I thought it was and you get your panties in a wad over some prick claiming he was misquoted and tie it all into Sarah Palin. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

I had to edit my post, it was a waste of time.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Jan 13 2010, 02:52 AM

[Omega892R09]

What are you talking about? I posted an article from a MSM rag and even mentioned what twaddle I thought it was and you get your panties in a wad over some prick claiming he was misquoted and tie it all into Sarah Palin. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

I had to edit my post, it was a waste of time.

So respected climate scientist Mojib Latif is 'some prick' to you. Your credibilty drops again.

And as for 'claiming he was misquoted' I supplied you with evidence that he was misquoted, and some and again!

And the ref' to Palin was because of the fact that she is joining FOX which make a good fit considering the global warming twaddle she has repeatedly spouted over the last twelve months. But of course such a subtle reference is to difficult for you to make any sense of. Silly me, I should have realised that from past form.

Now stop being such a chump.

EDIT: fixed size tag.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 13 2010, 08:37 AM

[Omega892R09]

Ooooh, the world is getting so hot.

Excuse me while I return to my snow shoveling duties.

Still not answered my question - lat'and long'.

Whats Up With You - afraid I might just prick your bubble by supplying you with a good explanation.

You sure as hell ain't paid attention to any of the science that could help do so.

[lunk]

Well S. BC has had a sudden warming trend,
all the snow is gone (except for the people who shoveled their driveways)
it's even raining, on the snow encrusted mountain tops.

...but i don't think winter is over, quite yet.

[Sanders]

Still not answered my question - lat'and long'.

Whats Up With You - afraid I might just prick your bubble by supplying you with a good explanation.

You sure as hell ain't paid attention to any of the science that could help do so.

35° 41' 6" N / 139° 45' 5" E.

(And I wasn't actually shoveling snow, I just said that in reference to all the snow that's fallen this year in a variety of locals - there were flurries in Tampa a couple of days ago. (Tampa!!!???))


No, I'm not afraid of you "pricking my bubble".

Warm trend="climate change"

Cold trend="weather"

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[lunk]

35° 41' 6" N / 139° 45' 5" E.

(And I wasn't actually shoveling snow, I just said that in reference to all the snow that's fallen this year in a variety of locals - there were flurries in Tampa a couple of days ago. (Tampa!!!???))


No, I'm not afraid of you "pricking my bubble".

Warm trend="climate change"

Cold trend="weather"

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Sorry Sanders, i wasn't meaning to needle you, lol.

But looking out my window, it appears that the people, who wanted to get rid of the snow the most, are the ones still stuck with it, in a pile beside their driveways. All the other snow has melted, down here in the valley.

[Timothy Osman]

Now stop being such a chump.

Speaking of chumps, there is this bloke.




He's a right winger like everyone else who questions the Orthodoxy.

[GroundPounder]

funny vid TO!

[Omega892R09]

He's a right winger like everyone else who questions the Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy?

[Sanders]

Orthodoxy?

Yeah, orthodoxy. Didn't you get the memo?

[Omega892R09]

Cold trend="weather"

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Which is probably related to climate change, like the C7 degree C rise of temperature at the North Pole melting loads of ice upsetting the circumpolar circulation (jet streams) and putting tons of extra moisture in the air to fall out as cold wet stuff. Note that the circumpolar current has a wave outline with some parts being further south than others.

Didn't you get the memo?

I recall a problem in early 1991, about April, with unusually cold conditions spreading towards the Azores. I was watching monitors and computer outputs at Bracknell during a tour of the works. Very interesting it was too. This of course less than three years after a record heatwave over Britain and Europe in 1988 (a holiday in the South of France was almost a killer).

Study some science here, the Archer link above will help, then there would be no need for your (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) . (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 14 2010, 06:35 PM