Climategate is Still the Issue

digme

This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-uzNBtdYOo

Aiel

This was nicely swept under the nearest carpet as quickly as possible by most media outlets last year.The story broke in the UK so they gave it a quick nod but the Irish media didnt even do that.Top scientist's lost all credibility:mad:.As someone who loves many area's of Science i was very dissapointed to hear this story,it had to come out though,credibility is key.

Min

The thing that got me before any climategate scandal was the fact we were told going from 285 parts per 1,000,000 of Co2 in the atmosphere to 385 parts per 1,000,000 was suppose to have caused warming, when in the Earth's past we had somewhere arounf 6,000 parts per 1,000,000 of Co2 and we didn't end up with a runaway greenhouse effect.

Sometimes Venus is mentioned as a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect but it has an atmosphere somewhere around 96% carbon dioxide compared to Earth's 0.0385% carbon dioxide.

I'm all for looking after the environment but not for the lies we are told which are just an excuse for a new area in job creation and tax collection.

odyboody

For economies to grow you need to be fighting a war.
After the cold war ended there was a vacuum.
The US filled it with "The war on terror". Everyone else had to make do with the war on climate change. As in any war propagand and lies abound.
Its all about taxes and jobs. The truth is a casualty of war.

thetonynator

odyboody wrote: »

For economies to grow you need to be fighting a war.
After the cold war ended there was a vacuum.
The US filled it with "The war on terror". Everyone else had to make do with the war on climate change. As in any war propagand and lies abound.
Its all about taxes and jobs. The truth is a casualty of war.

Then i propse a war on bankers and property developers instead of this one . . .:mad:

Danno

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056093243 <<< merge with this?

octo

Min wrote: »

The thing that got me before any climategate scandal was the fact we were told going from 285 parts per 1,000,000 of Co2 in the atmosphere to 385 parts per 1,000,000 was suppose to have caused warming, when in the Earth's past we had somewhere arounf 6,000 parts per 1,000,000 of Co2 and we didn't end up with a runaway greenhouse effect.

Temperatures have warmed by about a degree in the last 70 years. Download any long term data set from here, stick it into excel and see for yourself.

thetonynator

octo wrote: »

Temperatures have warmed by about a degree in the last 70 years. Download any long term data set from here, stick it into excel and see for yourself.

There are a lot of factors that can cause warming, CO2 is only one of them. And a coulpe of parts per million make sweet f.a. difference.

octo

thetonynator wrote: »

There are a lot of factors that can cause warming, CO2 is only one of them. And a coulpe of parts per million make sweet f.a. difference.

A couple of hundred parts per million makes a huge difference. Its nearly a 50% increase. This has been known for over a hundred years, since the work of John Tyndall of County Carlow in the 1850's. The infra-red opaqueness of CO2 can be measured in a lab.

thetonynator

octo wrote: »

A couple of hundred parts per million makes a huge difference. Its nearly a 50% increase. This has been known for over a hundred years, since the work of John Tyndall of County Carlow in the 1850's. The infra-red opaqueness of CO2 can be measured in a lab.

If i have 50c and i get a 50% increase, the 75c i now have doesn't make me rich. In the same way, a couple of hundred p.p.m. with a 50% increase doesn't mean we have a lot of CO2, it just means we have more than we had before.

Sponge Bob

octo wrote: »

Temperatures have warmed by about a degree in the last 70 years. Download any long term data set from here, stick it into excel and see for yourself.

Can I phrase that differently. Temperature measurements have risen a degree in 70 years largely as the airfields on which the measurements are made have changed from being covered in grass to being covered in concrete.

Did you not read this thread on weather station selection and location in the AGW model building...and the results thereof.

Chiefio has an excellent blog where he periodically looks at aspects of models here

Min

Let's not forget the moving weather stations in China. It would be like using data from Oak Park and saying it is from kilkenny.

Are we going to claim the medieval warm period was caused by CO2? I mean some of the ice melt in the Alps shows people lived high up in the mountains which were then ice free.

Carbon is simply an excuse for taxes and job creation based on questionable science.

octo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can I phrase that differently. Temperature measurements have risen a degree in 70 years largely as the airfields on which the measurements are made have changed from being covered in grass to being covered in concrete.

Did you not read this thread on weather station selection and location in the AGW model building...and the results thereof.

Chiefio has an excellent blog where he periodically looks at aspects of models here

Download Valentia, or Belmullet, or Malin Head. Have they been covered in concrete? Don`t just take my word for it, see for yourself.

Danno

Interesting you sample those stations Octo, right beside the sea. The decrease in solar activity of late will eventually feed back into sea temperatures and we will see these coastal stations consistently drop below average in time to come.

It's funny how articles in the UK newspapers were scaremongering about snow becoming a thing of the past in the year 2000, and now look, plenty of cold about with snow on the way!

I have no problem in curbing air pollution in the interest of the greater good, but don't tell me that it is changing the weather, it's not. It is however damaging peoples health etc... this is what should be focussed on.

It amazes me that the "Greens" in Ireland harp on about the air pollution whilst turning a blind eye to water pollution! I guess there is too much work in trying to conjour up a way of taxing waste water.

thetonynator

octo wrote: »

Download Valentia, or Belmullet, or Malin Head. Have they been covered in concrete? Don`t just take my word for it, see for yourself.

Valentia is the only one of these i have been to, and it is beside an urban area ( caherciveen) which would not have been an urban area when first built, and is at the edge of the town now. Also the original valentia station was on valentia island, the current one is several miles away.

Sponge Bob

octo wrote: »

Download Valentia, or Belmullet, or Malin Head. Have they been covered in concrete? Don`t just take my word for it, see for yourself.

No. Have a look at the Rome Ciampino Weather station though , right where the odd jet engine can bork the data set just a tad



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

long article, I quote an extract only

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Valentia has been near Caherciveen since 1892 and is a valid time series to be fair. However someone removed a field just east of it in between 1995 and 2000 as you can see if you toggle aerial layers in that link. The 25" map shows how far away Caherciveen was ....although a train line ran past it in those days.

The airports issue predates Climategate by some months have a read of this.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/28/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-86-when-in-rome-dont-do-as-the-romans-do/

Wattsupwiththat and Chiefio have studied data station locations and compared lost data stations used in models too.

Finally have a gawk at that Rome station using the 3d view HERE

Sponge Bob

Still giving after all these years.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/exclusive-climatologist-says-he-.html

ScienceInsider can reveal that the scientist, Eugene Wahl of the National Climatic Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, admits to deleting the e-mails, which was done during his tenure at Alfred University in New York. That was before he became an employee at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But online reports on the investigative files have misconstrued a central point, he says, assuming that embattled climatologist Michael Mann told him to do so. On the contrary, Wahl says, he was responding to a request by East Anglia's Phil Jones that Mann forwarded to him "without any additional comment ... there was no request from [Mann] to delete emails." (The full statement follows.)
The e-mails that Wahl deleted included 2006 correspondence between Wahl and Keith Briffa of East Anglia, and Wahl says they were made public in 2009 as part of the East Anglia e-mails trove.

This bit below is very long and has a lot of Point of View insertions in [brackets] to make it readable..not..... and parts of it concern use of an unpublished and as of that time unreviewed by peers science paper.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/

For people with nothing to hide they sure cocked things up, eh!!

Sponge Bob

However the controversy appears likely to come to an end fairly soon. That is because the Surface Temperature data is being revisited in an 'open and transparent' manner ....hopefully with all emails being published eh ??

Two separate projects are underway.

1. The Surface Temperatures global project led by the UK Met Office

http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/ , lots of stuff there including very up to date meeting notes of the "Data rescue task team" and the Provenance Team.

2. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group baed in UC Berkeley

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

The 1st group is many years from a conclusion but the Berkeley Earth group are due to publish a Temperature Record rather soon. This month perhaps.

If there is a substantial difference between the Berkeley Dataset and the Hadley/Hadcrut and Goddard/GISS/Gistemp Dataset then all hell will break loose. Keep an eye on developments :cool:

MiNdGaM3

Just to get this straight, are ye saying that no warming has occurred at all? Or just that warming has occurred but it's not CO2 that's the cause?

Sponge Bob

I am saying that the data 'supporting' _global_ warming is so ****ed up we don't know what has happened Thankfully there are two projects to address the data itself.

wildefalcon

What really worries me about all this AGW/Skeptics/deniers/alarmists debate is that the main issues facing us are being missed:

De-forestation in the Rainforest.

Desertification in the savannahs.

Building reliable alternative sources of energy for when the hydrocarbons run out.

We are losing the focus and missing the point.

Sponge Bob

wildefalcon wrote: »

What really worries me about all this AGW/Skeptics/deniers/alarmists debate is that the main issues facing us are being missed:

De-forestation in the Rainforest.
Desertification in the savannahs.
Building reliable alternative sources of energy for when the hydrocarbons run out.

You are describing Resource Depletion as it is known. That is my main concern too. However that has nothing to do with Global Warming save where Fixed Carbon depletion may or may not lead to Global Warming.

In order that we can focus on Resource Depletion we need to decouple the issues from AGW etc lest the Climate debate be seen to poison the RD debate. However that is for anothe forum ...not this one and I do dislke it when Rd and AGW are conflated...they being two separate issues with only one significant putative overlap.

Godge

wildefalcon wrote: »

What really worries me about all this AGW/Skeptics/deniers/alarmists debate is that the main issues facing us are being missed:

De-forestation in the Rainforest.

Desertification in the savannahs.

Building reliable alternative sources of energy for when the hydrocarbons run out.

We are losing the focus and missing the point.

No, the big issue is that we don't understand climate change and are not very good at predicting what will happen. For a start even the climate change scientists who support AGW cannot accurately predict how much the global temperature will increase by in various scenarios let alone what the regional effects will be. If they could explain global and regional climate change of the past we would at least have some confidence.

But think about it from an Irish policymakers point of view and look at the last two winters. The coldness of the last two winters in the British Isles has been explained as a regional effect by the AGW scientists. If this is true, should we be preparing for a mini Ice Age in our part of the world while the rest warms up or should we be preparing to grow vines and other Mediteranean crops? The AGW scientists can't answer that. That is without getting into any of the arguments about whether the effects of the Sun, the Moon, the magnetic poles or whatever has a greater effect on climate than man-made effects.

amacachi

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I am saying that the data 'supporting' _global_ warming is so ****ed up we don't know what has happened Thankfully there are two projects to address the data itself.

My favorite was a couple of years ago when a lad in Dallas noticed that NASA had screwed up their calculations for temperatures towards the end of the last century, the ones used all over as evidence of rising temperatures. :pac:

SeaFields

I read Climate : the counter consensus a few weeks back. Just happened to be going away for a week in the sun (how ironic ) and picked up a copy.

Now, right through undergraduate and postgraduate study we were bombarded with the doomsday scenario of climate change. The book takes all the fundamentals of GW/ CC and shows where data has been misinterpreted, altered or structured in a manner to further the debate. This is probably what is missing from the debate. Data is being taken at face value with no proper analysis of the methodologies that brought about the data. This book certainly made me think again.

Sponge Bob

I look forward to the Berkeley Earth Temperature data series , should be fun

wildefalcon

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You are describing Resource Depletion as it is known. That is my main concern too. However that has nothing to do with Global Warming save where Fixed Carbon depletion may or may not lead to Global Warming.

In order that we can focus on Resource Depletion we need to decouple the issues from AGW etc lest the Climate debate be seen to poison the RD debate. However that is for anothe forum ...not this one and I do dislke it when Rd and AGW are conflated...they being two separate issues with only one significant putative overlap.

The link with AGW is that Rd (new phrase for me) is more important, yet is being ignored in deference to AGW.

Rd is new AGW!