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?

1…1213151718…26

Comments

  • #422
    djan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,956 ✭✭✭djan


    Ìf you truly look at the real data you will notice that GLOBAL WARMING is not man-made and we cant do anything about it. Its merely a way of governments and companies funded by governemnts to make money.


  • #423
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's still good enough to signify that solar activity was a major player in clamate change!

    FYP

    40 years now and there is no good correlation with the sun. So, uh, yeah, got any other alternatives that might explain why the sun doesn't fit the data at all that well?
    • Oceans slow to release heat.


  • #424
    Toiletroll
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Toiletroll


    djan wrote: »
    Ìf you truly look at the real data you will notice that GLOBAL WARMING is not man-made and we cant do anything about it. Its merely a way of governments and companies funded by governemnts to make money.

    ... and to control every little aspect of our lives. Effectively privatizing the air that we breathe... You couldnt make it up.


  • #425
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Deleted User viewpost.gif
    It's still good enough to signify that solar activity Still is a major player in clamate change!
    FYP

    40 years now and there is no good correlation with the sun. So, uh, yeah, got any other alternatives that might explain why the sun doesn't fit the data at all that well?
    • Oceans slow to release heat.


    Fixed it back!

    The variations in solar activity isn't going to change neith is the fact that oceans act like giant "thermal stores" on earth and this stored energy will drive the climate, sometimes in unpredictable ways!


  • #426
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Fixed it back!

    The variations in solar activity isn't going to change neith is the fact that oceans act like giant "thermal stores" on earth and this stored energy will drive the climate, sometimes in unpredictable ways!

    C'mon,

    I just showed you that over the last 1000years that when the solar activity was the primary driver of warming it had a 10 year lag. Not a 30-40 year one.
    Are you just having faith that it's the sun that's causing the warming? Or do you actually have a better reason?


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Malty_T wrote: »
    C'mon,

    I just showed you that over the last 1000years that when the solar activity was the primary driver of warming it had a 10 year lag. Not a 30-40 year one.
    Are you just having faith that it's the sun that's causing the warming? Or do you actually have a better reason?

    JUst ask any heating engineer about "stratification", this is where a body of water will store heat in layers with the hottest at the top. The oceans also store solar heat in a similar fashion A powerful El Nino event will release this energy at a faster rate than the sun can warm the water, but the turbulance caused by the additional storms triggered by the event will mix the surface water more with the cooler water underneath.

    This mixing and cooling can happen at any time after a period of warming, if it is occurring during a solar maximum the affects of the increased solar radiation is reduced.


  • #428
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Toiletroll wrote: »
    Good video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzZdAfx37d8

    One of the contributers to that video claims that sea levels in the Maldives have actually dropped in the past 40 years. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    The video claims this was caused by increased evaporation. :eek: (I find that hard to believe) but the evidence is on the shoreline that sea levels were higher in the past (40 years ago is the claim). Could the land have risen..

    Anyone have sea level charts for the Maldives?


  • #429
    NaomiQuinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭NaomiQuinn


    It would take a lot of "hiding" to get rid of this four week freeze.


  • #430
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NaomiQuinn wrote: »
    It would take a lot of "hiding" to get ride of this four week freeze.

    Easy to lose in a three month average and call it weather instead of climate. ;)


  • #431
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The difference between weather and climate:

    Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity.

    Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.

    Let's hope that those who wish to bestow upon us their opinions on climate change at least bother to learn the difference between the two.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,896 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    taconnol wrote: »
    The difference between weather and climate:

    Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity.

    Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.

    Let's hope that those who wish to bestow upon us their opinions on climate change at least bother to learn the difference between the two.

    Yes, you're quite right. Unfortunately both of the most recent "climate" change predictions (mini ice age and global warming) were based on time-frames that were more indicative of changing weather than longterm climate changes.

    The question has to be how long is the time-frame that determines the difference between climate and weather trends.

    The more you look the more weather trends you find!


  • #433
    censuspro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 881 ✭✭✭censuspro


    Coldest winter we've had in over 50 years. I thought winters were supposed to be getting milder?


  • #434
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The question has to be how long is the time-frame that determines the difference between climate and weather trends.
    30 years, according to the World Meteorological Organisation.


  • #435
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    censuspro wrote: »
    Coldest winter we've had in over 50 years. I thought winters were supposed to be getting milder?


    You must understand in order to join the Cult of Al Gore you have to forget reality and replace it with CGI special effects. That's the real truth...:rolleyes:

    Personally anyone who still beleives all this AGW stuff in the wake of Climategate along with the incredible winter the entire Northern Hemisphere is currently experiencing has deep seeded reality acceptance issues.

    In years to come people will look back on the whole Man Man Global Warming hysteria and simply be amazed at the level of mass delusion and willing mind control it achieved in so many people. Not to mention how the real environmental agenda was forgotten and destroyed so banks and bent "scientists" could line their pockets.

    As for Met Offices and Scientific Peer Review...looks like the Romans did a better job with rams livers.


  • #436
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    taconnol wrote: »
    The difference between weather and climate:

    Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity.

    Climate in your place on the globe controls the weather where you live. Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.

    Let's hope that those who wish to bestow upon us their opinions on climate change at least bother to learn the difference between the two.

    Now explain the difference between reality and delusion.


  • #437
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    We get a couple of cold weeks, and global warming is out the window.... :rolleyes:

    when you look at climate change, tempreture patterns, does anybody really think that a couple of weeks of cold/icy weather is going to change the average tempreture graph over the last 30 years???


  • #438
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    Now explain the difference between reality and delusion.
    Either post constructively or don't bother posting at all.


  • #439
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    Personally anyone who still beleives all this AGW stuff in the wake of Climategate along with the incredible winter the entire Northern Hemisphere is currently experiencing...
    Much of the Northern Hemisphere is currently experiencing an exceptionally mild winter:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/dhtml_slides/10/cold_weather/img/weather_maps_4.gif
    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    In years to come people will look back on the whole Man Man Global Warming hysteria and simply be amazed at the level of mass delusion and willing mind control it achieved in so many people. Not to mention how the real environmental agenda was forgotten and destroyed so banks and bent "scientists" could line their pockets.

    As for Met Offices and Scientific Peer Review...looks like the Romans did a better job with rams livers.
    I’m not going to repeat myself again.


  • #440
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    You must understand in order to join the Cult of Al Gore you have to forget reality and replace it with CGI special effects. That's the real truth...:rolleyes:

    Personally anyone who still beleives all this AGW stuff in the wake of Climategate along with the incredible winter the entire Northern Hemisphere is currently experiencing has deep seeded reality acceptance issues.

    In years to come people will look back on the whole Man Man Global Warming hysteria and simply be amazed at the level of mass delusion and willing mind control it achieved in so many people. Not to mention how the real environmental agenda was forgotten and destroyed so banks and bent "scientists" could line their pockets.

    As for Met Offices and Scientific Peer Review...looks like the Romans did a better job with rams livers.

    It would be great to have a crystal ball and look forward to 100 years to see if what you suspect is true. While it's true that many ( including Al Gore, by all accounts) are becoming rich on the climate change industry which is growing up around the whole issue. that doesn't mean it's not happening.

    I'm disappointed that the leaked emails seem to indicate a lack of honesty about the issue, as it serves to cloud the truth, whatever that is. I'm also disappointed by the sort of witch huntery which happens to some who question the theory, and come up with evidence which seems to add to the questions.

    I look forward to the future where the truth will be revealed, and I bet it will be more interesting and less dramatic than some would want us to believe.


  • #441
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    I'm also disappointed by the sort of witch huntery which happens to some who question the theory, and come up with evidence which seems to add to the questions..

    Witchhuntry?

    Anyone is free to question any theory. There are many genuine skeptics out there on any given theory. However, if someone questions something that the theory actually isn't then that person is going to get eaten alive and rightly so. In science, you're expected to the understand the content before dismissing it. Strawmanning in science is regarded as the mother of all sins.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Witchhuntry?

    Anyone is free to question any theory. There are many genuine skeptics out there on any given theory. However, if someone questions something that the theory actually isn't then that person is going to get eaten alive and rightly so. In science, you're expected to the understand the content before dismissing it. Strawmanning in science is regarded as the mother of all sins.

    I'm surprised that you think strawmanning ( whatever that is, but defined in one dictionary as "▸ noun: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted ) to be considered as worse than dishonesty.


  • #443
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    I'm disappointed that the leaked emails seem to indicate a lack of honesty about the issue, as it serves to cloud the truth, whatever that is. I'm also disappointed by the sort of witch huntery which happens to some who question the theory, and come up with evidence which seems to add to the questions.

    Can you give an example of an individual who was subjected to a witch hunt for honestly questioning the AGW theory?

    As far as I can see the main victims of witch hunts are Mann, Trenberth and Jones.


  • #444
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    Húrin wrote: »
    Can you give an example of an individual who was subjected to a witch hunt for honestly questioning the AGW theory?

    As far as I can see the main victims of witch hunts are Mann, Trenberth and Jones.

    While I don;t want to get into a cul de sac where we try to outperform each other on coming up with examples, how about, for starters, the leaked email which shows that Mann & Jones, (two scientists who you think ar victims of a witch hunt) appeared to conspire and lobby together to secure the removal of an editor of a learned journal, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes?

    This thread is about the leaked emails, and if you are saying that yiou are not concerned about anything in the leaked emails, then that's your position. Others might, and many do, differ with you, and see much in these emails which give rise for concern.


  • #445
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    While I don;t want to get into a cul de sac where we try to outperform each other on coming up with examples, how about, for starters, the leaked email which shows that Mann & Jones, (two scientists who you think ar victims of a witch hunt) appeared to conspire and lobby together to secure the removal of an editor of a learned journal, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes? .

    Mann and Jones were not alone in this. In fact, you don't need to read the emails to know that this was their position. There was public outcry (among scientists) that such a reputable journal allowed paper to be publish that many commentators described as worthy of an "F". Highly reputable journals are expected to produce quality papers, this wasn't the case here at all. If Mann and Jones really had an agenda then how exactly do you explain this email :
    Solar -- Beer has a Be based proxy reconstruction of Solar ACTIVITY
    which can be converted to irradiance changes. [Is it different from LBB
    or H&S ?] Has the LBB dataset been updated? Has Svensmark got a better
    handle on his proposed physical mechanisms to amplify solar irradiance
    changes?     [Someone to check at RMS meeting which I won't be able to
    attend] Want forcing back to 1600??

    Looks to me like they paid compliment to a Climate Skeptic work and understanding on solar activity.
    Why aren't they censoring this guy's papers? Maybe because they're you know actually quite good.


  • #446
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    While I don;t want to get into a cul de sac where we try to outperform each other on coming up with examples, how about, for starters, the leaked email which shows that Mann & Jones, (two scientists who you think ar victims of a witch hunt) appeared to conspire and lobby together to secure the removal of an editor of a learned journal, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes?
    That’s quite an accusation you’re making there – care to back it up with something?


  • #447
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Mann and Jones were not alone in this. .

    I know they weren't alone, but it does highlight the way they think, and hightlights that they don't like anyone to ask awkward questions which might show that their theory is not 100% accurate.


  • #448
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    I know they weren't alone, but it does highlight the way they think, and hightlights that they don't like anyone to ask awkward questions which might show that their theory is not 100% accurate.

    Really??
    It highlights how they function as scientists required to uphold high standards. Allowing such a poor paper to be published would be hypocritical. Hence the outrage.

    Are you sure you aren't confusing awkward question with stupid ones?

    P.s It would be nice if you could explain why Svensmark isn't being censored.


  • #449
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Really??
    It highlights how they function as scientists required to uphold high standards. Allowing such a poor paper to be published would be hypocritical. Hence the outrage.

    Are you sure you aren't confusing awkward question with stupid ones?

    P.s It would be nice if you could explain why Svensmark isn't being censored.

    If one is sure of ones facts, and certain of ones brief, there would be no need to censor someone who was asking questions. Indeed, robust questioning would only add to reinforce the rightness of ones position.

    I've never heard of another scientist who claimed that, in order to uphold high standards, they were going to try to quieten someone who was asking questions.


  • #450
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    If one is sure of ones facts, and certain of ones brief, there would be no need to censor someone who was asking questions. Indeed, robust questioning would only ass to reinforce the rightness of ones position.

    I've never heard of another scientist who claimed that, in order to uphold high standards, they were going to try to quieten someone who was asking questions.

    Can you please answer my question regarding Svensmark?

    As for your whole "quieten "charade, do you have any actual evidence to show that deliberate censoring/quieting was done to reputable papers. I've already explained to you that the reason Mann et Al were complaining about that paper wasn't because it challenged the AGW model there are numerous papers published that do. It was because it was a poorly researched and published paper that probably wouldn't have been accepted as an undergraduate assignment. That's how bad it was. It quite simply should never have been published. The facts were wrong and it showed a complete misunderstanding of tree rings.


    If you think scientist don't always get pissed off when people get facts wrong, you should see the reactions to Carl Sagan's Cosmos and Stephen Gould's Wonderful Life. While praise was given where it was due for Sagan and Gould's inspiration to the public, criticism were dished out on any mistake they made. That's how science works : make a tiny mistake public; expect to be torn to shreds over it.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    If one is sure of ones facts, and certain of ones brief, there would be no need to censor someone who was asking questions. Indeed, robust questioning would only ass to reinforce the rightness of ones position.

    I've never heard of another scientist who claimed that, in order to uphold high standards, they were going to try to quieten someone who was asking questions.
    Speakng of questions, any chance you could answer this one?


Advertisement