Climate Change - Is the Tide Turning?

[ltstanfo]

Interesting article from the Telegraph. *IF* this turns out to be true, it will be both ironic (that science may have participated in the creation of manbearpig) and delicious. Time will tell where this goes.

EDIT - Looks like the Washington Times has picked up on the subject as well. Not sure where they learned of it (ie the Telegraph).

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[redrumloa]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew this was a fraud all along, thus why Global Warming became Climate Change.

Oh wait.. Even here we were called "flat earthers" for suggesting global warming was bullspit. Lefties are soooo gullible and we will still likely see brutally oppressive legislation based on a massive hoax.

Yes I will gloat as this all plays out

 

[Glaucus]

This will only create more skepticism of science in general - even if this all proves to be a big misunderstanding. Things like this could send us back into the dark ages if governments decide to withdraw research grants - meaning that even climate change skeptics have little to cheer about.

Fact is, these emails don't disprove climate change theories at all, but the skeptics will perceive it as such. It does show that once an issue becomes politicized there's really no one you can trust - and indeed those who stole and published these emails should be equally mistrusted as their actions too are likely to be politically motivated. Regardless, we must demand more openness from our scientific community and only accept research with fully published data. We've seen scientific fraud in other fields too, perhaps now's a good time to take a hard look and see how we can restore integrity. Leave the secrecy to the politicians.

Having said that, the first article mentioned that anyone investing in alternative energy should bail out now. I would think that's a real bad idea. Regardless of climate change theories, oil is going to run out one day and the patents for he next generation of energy will be researched and granted in our life time. Sounds to me like there's plenty of money to be made.

 

[Glaucus]

The scientists claim many of those snippets were intentionally taken out of context. Again, not too surprising considering this is a highly political issue. This article does elaborate slightly on this and gives larger snippets that make some of those early quotes seem a lot less nasty:
Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate

Bloggers allege that an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, suggests that reality contradicts scientific claims about global warming:

"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low....

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he's making in it by not reading the article cited in his e-mail. That article, called "An Imperative for Climate Change Planning," actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

"It says we don't have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures -- including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators -- that global warming is continuing," he says.

 

[cecilia]

as soon as I saw this was about email discussions I knew this was silly.

you aren't going to convince me of anything with people's emails.

that's not proof. that's yentering

and if I had money in solar energy I'd very much keep that. the sun will be around for a billion years. plenty of time to make a profit.

oil will be gone WAAAAY sooner

 

[redrumloa]

and if I had money in solar energy I'd very much keep that. the sun will be around for a billion years. plenty of time to make a profit.

oil will be gone WAAAAY sooner

I mostly agree with this part of your post, though certain solar company's stock are overpriced atm. I am looking for a possible entry point in First Solar (FSLR). They are profitable, but hitting a speed bump in growth.

 

[cecilia]

the breakthrough technology on solar energy is the printing of solar cells on plastic sheets. And combining that with roof tiles. or even painting "solar cells" onto the building walls.

just an FYI

 

[faethor]

Interesting article from the Telegraph. *IF* this turns out to be true, it will be both ironic (that science may have participated in the creation of manbearpig) and delicious. Time will tell where this goes.

I've dug through most of the emails. It appears to me the emails show scientists are people. They use common language in the course of events. Once they have completed their experiments and must present the results they clean it up. Having worked in a college, in public sector, and in private industry this doesn't seem to be any different. People have their internal politics and actions but when something is presented it is, more often then not, professional.

ArsTechnica had what I found to be a good write up of what happens with the crime committed and the airing of what the GW Denialists are tied to as some big conspiracy.

For example... One oft cited email is Phil Jone's statement of 'a trick' used to come up with a mathematical result. The GW Denials are holding their view that this is evidence of a conspiracy. GWDers set the context first then use this emotional tie to filter out what they claim supports the filter. It's circular in a way. This 'trick' was clearly a cool way to handle the problem. Which one was meant here clearly needs more investigation to define the true answer. Let's not get the context defined by a snippet and lack of understanding of what's truly going on here.

It's like judging Lstanfo's entire life by only reading his Whyzzat posts of 2008.


In the end the science results in an explaination supported by the facts. What this shows is simply the politics that we humans throw into all of our activities.

 

[Robert]

GLACIERS in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas have stopped melting after the release of secret emails showing climate change scientists are at it.

Vast ice sheets across the globe gained up to four inches just hours after it emerged experts at the University of East Anglia had been manipulating data in a bid to knock-off early.

Meanwhile in the Antarctic the 200 square mile Donnelly ice shelf changed direction and headed back towards the continent where it then reattached itself to the slightly larger McPartlin ice shelf.

Climate change sceptic and fully-qualified blogger Martin Bishop said: "As soon as these emails were released the world's glaciers resumed their normal, icey behaviour, as long-predicted by some of London's most important journalists.

"This is the smoking iceberg that fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism."

He added: "More than half the world's journalists who have read Nigel Lawson's book now accept that the atmosphere could not possibly have been affected by setting fire to millions of tons of coal, oil and gas every single day for 150 years while at the same time chopping down most of the really big trees."

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "While there will always be debate over climate data, it's important to remember that the state of the world's icebergs and glaciers remains wholly dependant on which group of tedious, hectoring arseholes is currently winning the argument."

But Bill McKay, an accountant from Dunbar, said: "I'm not a scientist, but last week I noticed some mosquito-like creatures buzzing around the light at my back door. Again, not a scientist, but... mosquitos, November, Scotland.

"Someone needs to explain that to me, because as things stand, it does seem to be a tad f*cked up."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment

 

[Robert]

Yes I will gloat as this all plays out

And look more and more foolish as time goes by....

 

[faethor]

GLACIERS in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas have stopped melting after the release of secret emails showing climate change scientists are at it.

Vast ice sheets across the globe gained up to four inches just hours after it emerged experts at the University of East Anglia had been manipulating data in a bid to knock-off early.

:roflmao:

She added: "More than half the world's journalists who have read Nigella Lawson's book now accept that the atmosphere could not possibly have been affected by setting fire to millions of tons of coal, oil and gas every single day for 150 years while at the same time chopping down most of the really big trees."

Much improved Lawson!

 

[redrumloa]

But Bill McKay, an accountant from Dunbar, said: "I'm not a scientist, but last week I noticed some mosquito-like creatures buzzing around the light at my back door. Again, not a scientist, but... mosquitos, November, Scotland.

"Someone needs to explain that to me, because as things stand, it does seem to be a tad f*cked up."

That's not science, but this is.

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... llite-era/

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Y ... e13834.htm

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

 

[Glaucus]

Interesting article there Red. However, a single piece of evidence taken out of context doesn't really mean a whole lot. For instance, I'd expect the rate of ice melt to diminish as the ice caps shrink. If all a large chunk of ice has already melted, then you'd expect the rate of melting to go down as there's less ice to melt. Have you considered that before posting this? Probably not.

That was my first thought. But then I had another. Ice melt is dependent on the cyclic Ice growth. What if the ice growth was lower this year? That would have a corresponding lower melt as well. This was my second thought. Here's an example of how this affected Arctic ice melts this year: Warm winds slow autumn ice growth

Either of these simple explanations are viable and neither are discussed by you or that article. Why is that?

EDIT: This article suggests it's all the fault of El-Niño and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode.

 

[Robert]

That's not science,

You spotted that? Well done, you! Have a banana:


Did you also notice that the whole article is firmly tongue in cheek?

 

[cecilia]

That's not science,

You spotted that? Well done, you! Have a banana:


Did you also notice that the whole article is firmly tongue in cheek?

I noticed

laughed out loud :roflmao:

 

[ltstanfo]

UPDATE - The University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) has admitted to throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. Unfortunately, this means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

I am not accusing them of doing this on purpose. They are not the first entity to discard records and they will not be the last. Unfortunately for the CRU, especially in light of the recent hacking of emails, it certainly adds fuel to the fire that not everything may be as kosher as the CRU would have use believe.

For the record, I again restate that I accept that there is climate change occurring. What I do not accept is that humans are the sole or even majority cause as the CRU seem to imply.

UPDATE: To their credit, the CRU is now stating that they will publish all data once they work out the details involved. Unfortunately for them (based on first link) I don't see how this is entirely possible in light of the deleted original data. Still, credit where credit is due. Now both supporters and skeptics can review, analyze and comment. This will be interesting to follow.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Glaucus]

For the record, I again restate that I accept that there is climate change occurring. What I do not accept is that humans are the sole or even majority cause as the CRU seem to imply.

And may I ask what you base this disbelief on? The way I see it, nature took millions of years to compress all that carbon into coal and oil and in about 200 years we'll burn it all and send it all into the atmosphere. I'm not sure how you could expect this to NOT have some kind of effect.

 

[Robert]

For the record, I again restate that I accept that there is climate change occurring. What I do not accept is that humans are the sole or even majority cause as the CRU seem to imply.

And may I ask what you base this disbelief on? The way I see it, nature took millions of years to compress all that carbon into coal and oil and in about 200 years we'll burn it all and send it all into the atmosphere. I'm not sure how you could expect this to NOT have some kind of effect.

Whilst I agree with Mike, I think the more important point is that if we can ameliorate (even slightly) the situation by making some changes to the way we do things, it would be completely irresponsible of us not to.

 

[ltstanfo]

And may I ask what you base this disbelief on? The way I see it, nature took millions of years to compress all that carbon into coal and oil and in about 200 years we'll burn it all and send it all into the atmosphere. I'm not sure how you could expect this to NOT have some kind of effect.

Mike,

A fair question. My belief is based upon several things but for a short summary, I give you the wikipedia list of scientists who disagree with Global Warming. Much of my thoughts on this topic are covered in pretty good detail on this list. I include geologic record, solar activity and other topics.

I readily admit that I am not the "expert" on this topic but given that so many scientists seem to want to disagree with the "mainstream" on this topic I cannot simply discount them as so many apparently would have the public do.

Have we (humans) contributed to "global warming"? Perhaps. However, until we can accurately determine what factor we contribute to "global warming", I am not prepared to put Al Gore in charge of our future. Still, this is a topic which the public should be aware of (for and against).

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[ltstanfo]

Whilst I agree with Mike, I think the more important point is that if we can ameliorate (even slightly) the situation by making some changes to the way we do things, it would be completely irresponsible of us not to.

To a point I agree with you Robert. As an example, I have no issue in developing alternative energy such as solar, geo-thermal, wind (where economically feasable) and nuclear. Basing so much of our (the US) power grid on old systems such as coal and oil is not only needless at this point it is simply inefficient and we know that the supplies are not infinite. Is someone making money (on both sides)? Sure.

I have personally advocated nuclear power for a long time (recall my past comments here and over at AO). As an aside, these other forms of energy reduce emissions / pollution (when properly operated) so the side effect (my choice of words) is a reduction in man-made greenhouse gas that many attribute as the cause of global warming. I'd like to know why more countries (including the US) don't use more nuclear power when other countries like France and Japan seem to have successfully integrated that method of power into large portions of their power grid? Whyzzat?

So I guess my answer to you Robert is that where it is practical and beneficial, I think we should try to reduce emissions. The trick is to determine what is practical and beneficial. Obviously if scientists can universally agree that we are responsible for global warming, I would change my opinion.

Regards,
Ltstanfo