Latest Articles March 2010 How to make a mosaic house plaque Steeking Making Washing Gel February 2010 Making felt boots Creative Photography What happened to global warming? Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next   Downsizer traders        Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment Author   Message AnneandMike Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 870 Location: Over the hill and soon to be far away Posted: Tue Oct 13, 09 7:14 pm    Post subject:      The scientific debate on the actuality and causes of global warming is over. It is not surprising that multi-decadal ocean oscillations affect the year-on-year warming rate. If that is now holding back the warming, how much greater will it be when it provides positive feedback! Most people don't care because they don't think it will affect them personally. This is a logical but stupid conclusion because they are ignorant of the possibilities. Maybe when the grain growing areas of N America turn to desert and rice production is ruined by monsoon failures, when our screens are full of visions of mass famine and its associated turmoil and violence rather than Strictly X boredom, maybe then they will start to think. In the meantime, read the latest Committee on Climate Change report to the government to see what we need to do. crofter Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 952 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 2:36 am    Post subject:      AnneandMike wrote: The scientific debate on the actuality and causes of global warming is over. Perhaps not! Quote: Some of the world’s top climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data on global warming after hundreds of private emails were stolen by hackers and published online. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html Quote: A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Tavascarow Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 2877 Location: South Cornwall Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 7:43 am    Post subject:      crofter wrote: AnneandMike wrote: The scientific debate on the actuality and causes of global warming is over. Perhaps not! Quote: Some of the world’s top climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data on global warming after hundreds of private emails were stolen by hackers and published online. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html Quote: A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Looks like the Quote: Big public splash went without a hitch then. LINK Hairyloon Joined: 20 Nov 2008 Posts: 2044 Location: Today I are mostly being in Sheffield. Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 10:49 am    Post subject:      Wasn't that the second "once in a thousand years" flood this decade? Must be coincidence, it doesn't even hint at climate change. But in many ways, climate change is irrelevant. The global population and the finite limit of resources means that the problems need to be addressed irrespective of whether climate change is happening or not. crofter Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 952 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 12:33 pm    Post subject:      Hairyloon wrote: Wasn't that the second "once in a thousand years" flood this decade? Must be coincidence, it doesn't even hint at climate change. Flooding is affected by land use changes as well as recent changes in the climate, however I am sure that the climate is changing... I am not so sure about the role of CO2 in driving it though, and the contribution that human activity has made. I have heard many times that the science is supposedly "settled", but these leaked emails appear to suggest otherwise. Hairyloon wrote: But in many ways, climate change is irrelevant. The global population and the finite limit of resources means that the problems need to be addressed irrespective of whether climate change is happening or not. I agree. Penny Downsizer Moderator Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 17621 Location: Planet, not on the.... Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 1:03 pm    Post subject:      crofter wrote: Hairyloon wrote: But in many ways, climate change is irrelevant. The global population and the finite limit of resources means that the problems need to be addressed irrespective of whether climate change is happening or not. I agree. Indeed! cab Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 30139 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 4:58 pm    Post subject:      crofter wrote: AnneandMike wrote: The scientific debate on the actuality and causes of global warming is over. Perhaps not! No, really, it is. Attempts to discredit those who have won the argument such as by coming up with lists of people who allegedly dissent or by attacking individuals with slur campaigns (such as linked to there) doesn't change that. crofter Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 952 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 09 11:59 pm    Post subject:      It is not a "slur" campaign, it appears that the accepted science has been massaged, manipulated, truncated, spliced, bent and then when questions were asked, deliberate attempts were made to prevent data being made public. It stinks. But it does not mean that climate change is not happening. Quote: # Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544) # Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489) # Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow! # Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821) # Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122) # Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075) # Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064) # Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257) # Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257) # Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857) # Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249) # Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876) # Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277) # Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975) # Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944) # Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667) # Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796) # Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913) # Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806) # Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118) # Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002) # Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629) # Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230) # Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440) # Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302) # Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393) # Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573) # Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted] # Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873) # Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056) # Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698) # Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851) # Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576) # Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704) # Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124) # Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172) # Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645) # Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684) # Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829) # Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338) # Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616) # Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034) # Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274) # David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698) # Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929) # Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393) # Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306) toggle Joined: 30 Dec 2006 Posts: 5309 Posted: Mon Nov 23, 09 12:58 am    Post subject:      Treacodactyl wrote: I was more interested in the ocean temperature cycles, anyone know much about that? i'm currently looking at the evidence for ocean currents in the last ice age. it isn't easy to understand details, but i believe most of the currents are very temperature dependent. the cold spells definately shut down the gulf stream. they also suppressed the indian ocean currents (and weather events such as the monsoon) Hairyloon Joined: 20 Nov 2008 Posts: 2044 Location: Today I are mostly being in Sheffield. Posted: Mon Nov 23, 09 1:50 am    Post subject:      toggle wrote: ... the cold spells definately shut down the gulf stream. they also suppressed the indian ocean currents (and weather events such as the monsoon) Cause or effect? AnneandMike Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 870 Location: Over the hill and soon to be far away Posted: Mon Nov 23, 09 7:53 pm    Post subject:      A report in this week's New Scientist says that measurements of the Greenland ice sheet show a loss of 1500 cubic KILOMETRES in the last 8 years. Sea level is rising and the rate of rise is increasing. These events can only be interpreted as evidence that the climate is warming. These changes will not happen linearly and may even stop temporarily, that is the nature of complex dynamic systems like the atmosphere/ocean. What can also happen, and scientists are wary of mentioning this, is a sudden (abrupt) large scale change in the global climate. Greenland ice cores have shown this happening frequently in the past. When it comes to the 'politics' of climate change, we all need to remember the vastly wealthy vested interests that are prepared to do almost anything to protect their interests - identical to the smoking and cancer situation in previous years. Whatever the truth or otherwise of these emails, they will be paraded by the sceptics (Nigel Lawson has in The Times today, total drivel) whilst ignoring the libraries of evidence from the natural world. dpack Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 13779 Location: w yorks /earth Posted: Mon Nov 23, 09 8:09 pm    Post subject:      mutate and survive cab Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 30139 Posted: Mon Nov 23, 09 10:48 pm    Post subject:      crofter wrote: It is not a "slur" campaign, it appears that the accepted science has been massaged, manipulated, truncated, spliced, bent and then when questions were asked, deliberate attempts were made to prevent data being made public. It stinks. But it does not mean that climate change is not happening. Or, rather, when you cherry pick bits and bobs out of a lot of emails, you can make an image appear that way. What you can't do is demonstrate anything actually wrong with the argument for anthropogenic global warming, so those who oppose it on idealogical grounds have resorted to smear campaigns. The case for global warming being caused by human activity is proven beyond the point where it is seriously questioned in climatology. Show me any recent (last, say, three years) credible papers saying otherwise. crofter Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 952 Posted: Tue Nov 24, 09 12:41 am    Post subject:      cab wrote: The case for global warming being caused by human activity is proven beyond the point where it is seriously questioned in climatology. Show me any recent (last, say, three years) credible papers saying otherwise. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has maybe published a few(?!) but I don't know... seem to remember some scientific dissent in Germany earlier this year (letter to Merkel) Quote: Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published. The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions. Back to the emails.... Quote: There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists cab Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 30139 Posted: Tue Nov 24, 09 8:42 am    Post subject:      crofter wrote: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen has maybe published a few(?!) but I don't know... seem to remember some scientific dissent in Germany earlier this year (letter to Merkel) So, which papers, where? Other than 'on the interent', where anyone can say anything, which real, reputable papers disproving anthropogenic climate change or indeed seriously calling that into question, are you referring to?        Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next Page 2 of 3 View Latest Posts   Archive Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.

Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com