Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Climategate?

Options
12467…26

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What concentration of atmospheric CO2 is required before the Sahara will ‘green’ again?

    This is one area where I worry about "climate change" advocates being CO2 obsessed.

    Changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere alone won't green the desert, it may or may not have a direct or indirect effect in changing the climate sufficiently to green the desert on it's own.

    The sun has been and always will be the prime driver of climate on this planet and there is plenty of evidence that the recent sunspot cycles have been exceptionaly high, cycle 24 peaked about six years ago, co-inciding with some claims of global warming advocates of one of the warmest years on record.

    Since 2004 the sunspot cycle has been winding down (so have world temperatures), some predictions for the next sunspot cycle state that it willl be a "quiet" one.

    If so, the next couple of decades will be "cooler".

    Solar activity is conspicuous by it's absance from all the headline AGW reports.


  • Options
    #93
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    both from the same side of the fence and completely different views..... somebodies logic is flawed here :)
    I'm afraid it is your logic that is flawed. I said that scientists are not claiming that the 20th century was the hottest ever.


  • Options
    #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    both from the same side of the fence and completely different views.....
    I wouldn’t say they’re completely different – we’re both saying more or less the same thing. Why should our views be exactly the same?
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    Selected quotes from the emails...
    Ok, so you’ve gone and “selected” quotes from a few emails, which means that we really have no idea what the context is, do we? Some of them might look suspicious when taken at face value, but we don’t really know what they’re talking about, do we? It’s just guesswork. Can you honestly say that you know what’s being said here for example:

    "I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that."
    Deleted User wrote: »
    CO2 levels needed would be enough to bring temperatures up to levels equal to any of the 3 times in the past 120,000 years when the Sahara was green.
    Nothing else is required? We up the atmospheric CO2 concentration and, hey presto, the Sahara blooms?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere alone won't green the desert...
    Precisely my point. The claim has been made on a number of occasions on this forum that upping CO2 concentration will benefit plant life. Now, it might, but that would depend on all other nutrients being present in excess. In the absence of water, for example, you can up the CO2 concentration all you want, but ain’t nothin’ gonna grow.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The sun has been and always will be the prime driver of climate on this planet and there is plenty of evidence that the recent sunspot cycles have been exceptionaly high, cycle 24 peaked about six years ago, co-inciding with some claims of global warming advocates of one of the warmest years on record.
    Nobody is denying that the sun obviously plays a major role in our climate, but there is no evidence that suggest that variations in solar output are responsible for the observed warming over the last few decades.


  • Options
    #95
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    taconnol wrote: »
    I'm afraid it is your logic that is flawed. I said that scientists are not claiming that the 20th century was the hottest ever.

    Thats what you said YES..... but DJpBarry said hottest for 1000 years....
    yet both of you are on the same side of the AGW fence.... both answers cannot be right :)


  • Options
    #96
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,736 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And this is based on what exactly?

    History.

    From this site: http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

    During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than today. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is about 1 to 2 degrees warmer than today. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

    In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

    Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art.

    9th & 10th centuries: Vikings reach Island and Greenland during the milder condition that prevailed during Medieval Warm Period.

    Norse settlers arrived in Iceland in the 9th and Greenland in the 10th century with an agricultural practice based on milk, meat and fibre from cattle, sheep, and goats. The settlers were attracted by green fields and a relatively good climate and driven there by population pressures in Scandinavia.

    They were able to sail to Iceland and Greenland as well as Labrador because of a decrease in sea ice in the north Atlantic.
    And also from this source:

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=pBu8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=mediaeval+weather+crops+cathedrals&source=bl&ots=oIAI9fllM2&sig=umbxSIV-A0R_J_2UGrqUdDjfZ84&hl=en&ei=Q_kMS-CZJoGi4QalwrWcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false
    An illustrated history of late medieval England - By Chris Given-Wilson
    , in particular, a chapter by Mark Bailey - The English Landscape
    The Thirteenth century marked the latter stages of the medieval 'warm epoch' in north-western-Europe, when average summer temperatures were perhaps one degree centigrade warmer than today. Warmer and drier summers encouraged the spread of vineyards in southern England and enabled farmers to cultivate grain at higher altitudes: there is evidence of thirteenth century cultivation at 1,300 feet above sea level on Dartmoor and at 1,000 feet in the Northumberland hills. However, there is growing evidence of climate change towards the end of the century, as summer rainfall rose consistently on the western hills...

    The growing instability of weather patterns in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries is apparent in the contrast between, on the one hand, the series of bumper harvests in the 1330s and, on the other hand, the terrible crop failures and cattle murrains of 1315-22. Such striking variability in the weather is is a likely indicator of a changing climate, and by the fifteenth century summers appear to to have become consistently wetter and colder. Mean summer temperature was perhaps a degree centigrade lower than in the thirteenth century, and presaged the onset of the little ice age...
    I don't know about you, but to me, this last bit could be describing the weather we have been experiencing in the British Isles these last few years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    Thats what you said YES..... but DJpBarry said hottest for 1000 years....
    yet both of you are on the same side of the AGW fence.... both answers cannot be right :)
    Oh dear. Do you think that the last 1000 years equals ever?


  • Options
    #98
    Mark200
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    All I'm going to say is, I doubt the world of scientists have been depending on the University of East Anglia for all their global warming research.


  • Options
    #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nothing else is required? We up the atmospheric CO2 concentration and, hey presto, the Sahara blooms?

    Well going on the IPCC pic I posted earlier rainfall will increase in this part of the world. CO2 also fertilises vegetation.


  • Options
    #100
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    History.
    And how accurate is this “history”?


  • Options
    #101
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well going on the IPCC pic I posted earlier rainfall will increase in this part of the world. CO2 also fertilises vegetation.
    I think you know what my point is - an increase in CO2 concentration will only benefit plant growth if all other nutrients are present in the requisite amounts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think you know what my point is - an increase in CO2 concentration will only benefit plant growth if all other nutrients are present in the requisite amounts.

    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.

    Anyway apparently its all much much worse than predicted
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

    ^^


  • Options
    #103
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.

    Anyway apparently its all much much worse than predicted
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

    ^^
    And after a few years of punitive "carbon taxation" they'll turn around and say "look the taxes worked, it's cooler!" :mad:


  • Options
    #104
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.
    And plants depend on more than just CO2 and water - can we leave it at that please? It's not really relevant to the thread anyway.


  • Options
    #105
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,736 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And how accurate is this “history”?

    More accurate than any climate 'models.'

    More accurate than revisionist temperature data.

    You are desperately grasping at straws with such a question.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.
    The historical evidence from the medieval warm period indicates summers were dryer when temperatures were warmer.


  • Options
    #106
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    More accurate than any climate 'models.'

    More accurate than revisionist temperature data.

    You are desperately grasping at straws with such a question.

    The historical evidence from the medieval warm period indicates summers were dryer when temperatures were warmer.
    cnocbui, you're basing your entire argument on temperature data from tree rings when we know that temperatures extrapolated from tree rings are not entirely accurate.

    In fact, in the 1960s, when we had highly accurate thermometers, data from tree rings indicated entirely different temperatures that we knew to be incorrect.


  • Options
    #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Newsnight piece on the leaked emails:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYVxmPDEGMk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ0t_1B1Dgs
    Borrowed from thepropertypin.com.

    One thing about the report that annoyed me, was the attemped redirection of the use of the work "trick" in the report by University staff, rather than commenting on the selective use of data!

    But the other scientist who demonstrated "selective data selection" really demonstrated (in the wrong way) that the results were as a result of "cherry picking raw data.


  • Options
    #108
    hiwayman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭hiwayman


    The word trick could possibly be explained away, but this latest post from WUWT leaves it in the shade.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197


  • Options
    #109
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    More accurate than any climate 'models.'

    More accurate than revisionist temperature data.
    Are you sure about that? Are historical accounts reliable proxy indicators of climate? For example, one of the sources you use mentions the following:

    “It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.”

    But there are vineyards as far north as Yorkshire and Lancashire right now! So if the extent of English vineyards is a reliable proxy indicator of climate, surely that means temperatures are at least as high today as they were in medieval times? If they’re not a reliable indicator (which they’re not), then there’s no point talking about them.


  • Options
    #110
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,736 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    taconnol wrote: »
    cnocbui, you're basing your entire argument on temperature data from tree rings when we know that temperatures extrapolated from tree rings are not entirely accurate.

    In fact, in the 1960s, when we had highly accurate thermometers, data from tree rings indicated entirely different temperatures that we knew to be incorrect.

    Show me my post where I mentioned tree rings.


  • Options
    #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you sure about that? Are historical accounts reliable proxy indicators of climate? For example, one of the sources you use mentions the following:

    “It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.”

    But there are vineyards as far north as Yorkshire and Lancashire right now! So if the extent of English vineyards is a reliable proxy indicator of climate, surely that means temperatures are at least as high today as they were in medieval times? If they’re not a reliable indicator (which they’re not), then there’s no point talking about them.
    FWIW, I used to live near an English vineyard, currently only white wine (too cold for red) can be produced in England, but some of these reports refer to red wine being produced. Edit:something I find hard to believe - and I can't google it!

    Good old wikipedia, always on the ball, expect a lot of changes though!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,736 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you sure about that? Are historical accounts reliable proxy indicators of climate? For example, one of the sources you use mentions the following:

    “It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.”

    But there are vineyards as far north as Yorkshire and Lancashire right now! So if the extent of English vineyards is a reliable proxy indicator of climate, surely that means temperatures are at least as high today as they were in medieval times? If they’re not a reliable indicator (which they’re not), then there’s no point talking about them.

    The whole point of my bringing up the MWP was to show that Mann fudged the temperature record - as was alluded to in the leaked emails - in an attempt to make the Medieval Warm Period go away so that he could then claim that current temperatures were the warmest for a millenium.

    Temperatures have now gotten close to those during the MWP. You pointing out that there are vineyards that far north again, corroborates and supports the accuracy of history, which you were earlier trying to insinuate was inaccurate.

    Your claim that vinyards are not a reliable indicator of climate is in contrast to several academics who one supposes are probably reasonably expert in their subject fields. Is there any particular reason your statement to the contrary should be given more credence than those academics?

    At least one of those researchers is mentioned in the Climategate emails (Palutikof) and does not seem to agree with you, since he nominates vinyards in the UK as an indicator of climate change.

    he is not the only one:
    “Grapes are a good indicator crop,” explains Jones regarding the broader applications of their wine-specific work. Because wine grapes are grown in temperate climates - what’s called a “Mediterranean” climate - and wines are almost obsessively tasted and rated for quality, wine grapes are a particularly good indicator of changes that are probably effecting other crops in the same areas, says Jones.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=23928


  • Options
    #113
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Show me my post where I mentioned tree rings.

    This link:

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    Look at the caption under the graph


  • Options
    #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Not exactly climategate, but a potential foretaste as to what may become of the proceeds of "carbon taxation"
    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376009.stm
    Climate change help for the poor 'has not materialised'

    Large sums promised to developing countries to help them tackle climate change cannot be accounted for, a BBC investigation has found.

    Rich countries pledged $410m (£247m) a year in a 2001 declaration - but it is now unclear whether the money was paid.

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has accused industrialised countries of failing to keep their promise.

    The EU says the money was paid out in bilateral deals, but admits it cannot provide data to prove it.


  • Options
    #115
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,736 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    taconnol wrote: »
    This link:

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    Look at the caption under the graph

    I didn't reference that graph or that paragraph, I referenced the one below it - 10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum.

    But since you insist on bringing up tree ring data and it's purported innacuracy, could you explain why some of the leading AGW proponents, like Mann and Briffa, have relied upon it - well after they have cherry picked it of course - to support their arguments?


  • Options
    #116
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Temperatures have now gotten close to those during the MWP.
    I’m intrigued to know what you’re basing that on.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    You pointing out that there are vineyards that far north again, corroborates and supports the accuracy of history, which you were earlier trying to insinuate was inaccurate.
    It doesn’t corroborate anything. We know exactly how many vineyards there are in England today. We also have a very accurate measure of the mean temperature. Can we say the same of the Middle Ages? Obviously not, hence a correlation cannot be derived. Even if it could, other factors would need to be taken into consideration. For example, I’m guessing the supposed popularity of wine in England during the Middle Ages might have had something to do with the arrival of the Normans?
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Your claim that vinyards are not a reliable indicator of climate is in contrast to several academics who one supposes are probably reasonably expert in their subject fields.
    One supposes that they are. However, the fact that one’s ability to grow grapes depends heavily on a region’s climate is stating the obvious. Citing vague historical accounts of the extent of vineyards as a stand-alone scientific proxy indicator of climate variability is another matter entirely. Considering your dismissal of temperature reconstructions based on tree-ring data, your faith in ambiguous records that pre-date the foundation of the modern scientific method is quite remarkable.


  • Options
    #117
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    Mark200 wrote: »
    All I'm going to say is, I doubt the world of scientists have been depending on the University of East Anglia for all their global warming research.

    Well you are wrong, this "research unit" was the foundation of all IPCC reports until 2007;

    "In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MA


  • Options
    #118
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I didn't reference that graph or that paragraph, I referenced the one below it - 10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum.
    Oh sorry. But where is the source for that paragraph? There isn't one.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    But since you insist on bringing up tree ring data and it's purported innacuracy, could you explain why some of the leading AGW proponents, like Mann and Briffa, have relied upon it - well after they have cherry picked it of course - to support their arguments?
    No, the data in the graph is direct tree growth data. And tree ring data has to be interpreted, not taken directly as tree growth. You call it "cherry picking" but not to factor in known issues is bad scientific procedure.


  • Options
    #119
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    Raw data is of no use, you need to take the raw data and apply "science" then you get what you need. The whole scientific movement is quickly turning into a laughing stock.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/


  • Options
    #120
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    HollyEvans wrote: »
    Raw data is of no use, you need to take the raw data and apply "science" then you get what you need. The whole scientific movement is quickly turning into a laughing stock.
    This is just getting ridiculous. Do you understand the science behind tree ring data?
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
    What exactly is this link supposed to prove? Linking to a site is not the same as formulating an argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    taconnol wrote: »
    This is just getting ridiculous. Do you understand the science behind tree ring data?

    When did I mention anything about tree ring data?
    taconnol wrote: »
    What exactly is this link supposed to prove? Linking to a site is not the same as formulating an argument.

    This link shows that the research unit in the middle of this scam has until 2007 provided the foundation evidence of "global warming" to the IPCC.


Advertisement