nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Climategate?

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

climategate

carbon tax

Quick Links

Comments

I have yet to meet one of those.

Malty_T wrote: »

I have yet to meet one of those.

Copenhagan was full of them last december!

Deleted User wrote: »

Copenhagan was full of them last december!

Really? Then why was there no comprehensive agreement reached? Also, are you really basing your decision on a pivotal issue off the possibly crazy position a few people seems to hold? Most people are sane you know.

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wait the fun is about to start, latest news it that we are likely to be entering a "Dalton minimum" solar phase.
<image>
Two hours of video of this session can be accessed here.

Lets see all the environmentalists trying to explain the continuing fall in temperatures ofer the next couple of decades while CO2 is still rising.

Haven't got time to watch that vid. May do so in the the near future. It's the last statement I want to clarify. You are aware that this decade has been one of the weakest in terms of solar activity yet there has still being unprecedented warming. Last year which is the 2nd warmest on record coincided with the lowest solar activity in over a century.
Also I hope you're aware that over the last century the sun's net effect on the earth has been a cooling bias, yet the planet has unquestionably warmed up. Insisting that it's the sun that's responsible for everything, is a leap of faith in my view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that is your position?

The most relevant part of the video is in the first 20 minutes or so, as for low solar activity as I've explained earlier, it takes some time for the extra energy to dissapate after all the solar activity has been high for most of the second half of the century It took a couple of cycles before the warming gathered pace, so therefore it will take a couple of cycles for the effects of reduced inputted energy to have a real effect.

By about 2020 there is likely to be a downward trend in climatic temperatures, how far is anyones guess.

I don't consider the recent weather changes to be relevant in this either.

Don't forget that about 98% of the heat on Earth comes from the sun!

Malty_T wrote: »

Really? Then why was there no comprehensive agreement reached? Also, are you really basing your decision on a pivotal issue off the possibly crazy position a few people seems to hold? Most people are sane you know.

Thats actually a very interesting question and one answer is that the USA constitution was never going to allow the USA President, Congress and Senate to sign a draft agreement, which talked about "global government" and allowed a global authority to impose penalties on the USA, which future USA governments were unable to oppose.

Consequently, the treaty was a step too far for the USA and even Obama saw that it was not possible for the USA to sign the treaty.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only those that believed that global warming was the only show in town and that carbon taxation was the main solution.

Sorry, I don't follow; you're saying that proponents of global warming (who, exactly?) have suggested that recent increases in mean global temperature have nothing to do with solar activity or that said proponents dismiss any influence of the sun on our climate?

It appears that my belief that solar activity is the principal cause of climate change is being vindicated by more and more scientists. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64572361&postcount=37

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears that my belief that solar activity is the principal cause of climate change is being vindicated by more and more scientists. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64572361&postcount=37

If there is one thing we have learned, it is that claims as to the number of scientists who support a case being an indicator of the veracity of a case, are not to be trusted. It's not even an argument.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

If there is one thing we have learned, it is that claims as to the number of scientists who support a case being an indicator of the veracity of a case, are not to be trusted. It's not even an argument.

Indeed just like 32,000 "scientists" who signed a petition disagreeing with AGW theory.

Malty_T wrote: »

Haven't got time to watch that vid. May do so in the the near future. It's the last statement I want to clarify. You are aware that this decade has been one of the weakest in terms of solar activity yet there has still being unprecedented warming. Last year which is the 2nd warmest on record coincided with the lowest solar activity in over a century.
Also I hope you're aware that over the last century the sun's net effect on the earth has been a cooling bias, yet the planet has unquestionably warmed up. Insisting that it's the sun that's responsible for everything, is a leap of faith in my view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that is your position?

Correlations don't have to be direct simple correlations. Like when you say a government or president has been good, you have to wait decades, so that the effects of their policies are apparent, probably when they are out of office. Like if Fine Gael had got into government in the last election and we went straight into recession. You couldn't rationally blame Fine Gael for the recession, but there would be a simple correlation. So, in reality, for complex correlations, there is usually a lag of some kind.

I don't know the answer to all of this, but, unfortunately, regardless of the truth, proponents of AGW are emotionally and fiscally invested in their cause, so its not likely that we'll see any show of humility or an accurate public representation of science any time soon.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/

disgusting abuse of "science"

KimWalker wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/

disgusting abuse of "science"

key extract from the link.

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

KimWalker wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/

disgusting abuse of "science"

Hmm that interesting.

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

Actually by the process of that elimination they introduced a negative cooling bias - Whoops! Well documented in the literature but the work of Watts did help researchers to nail the value on the head. Though, naturally of course, Watts disputes all those findings.
(Iirc correctly, his response to the Menne et Al 2010 paper which stated "the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures." was to post a picture of a badly located weather station with the caption "Who said photographs didnt matter?") [paraphrased]

I'm all in favour of badly located weather stations being removed from the dataset, but when they are removed their historical records should also be eliminated.

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears that my belief that solar activity is the principal cause of climate change is being vindicated by more and more scientists. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64572361&postcount=37

It hasn't been vindicated. The plot on which the blog author is basing his claim was taken from an (unpublished) paper by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, two long-standing proponents of the solar forcing theory. Their work was subsequently discredited by Lockwood and Fröhlich. Have a look at Figure 9 in their publication - it shows clearly that the correlation between temperature and solar forcing breaks down around about the mid-late 1980's.

djpbarry wrote: »

Have a look at Figure 9 in their publication - it shows clearly that the correlation between temperature and solar forcing breaks down around about the mid-late 1980's.

But it does show a close correlation up to the mid 1980s, which coincidently is the same time that "allegedly" cooler weather stations were removed from the system!

Deleted User wrote: »

But it does show a close correlation up to the mid 1980s, which coincidently is the same time that "allegedly" cooler weather stations were removed from the system!

Are you referring to the Fox News article referred to in post #493? That article cites a report from the Science & Public Policy Institute that (for example), in turn, cites this blog post by Willis Eschenbach as a case study, which has already been demonstrated to be extremely misleading.

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you referring to the Fox News article referred to in post #493? That article cites a report from the Science & Public Policy Institute that (for example), in turn, cites this blog post by Willis Eschenbach as a case study, which has already been demonstrated to be extremely misleading.

Really, where did you Show it???? cos all I see there is argument from incredulity/'Authoraaaaathay' a bit of handwavin and some obfuscation.

oh and an adhomenin, but that seems to be standard fare in these 'debates'

also aint it a bit disengenuous to suggest we Dismiss someone elses Report because it may contain 'Dodgy material' whilst you continue to defend the IPCC report against the same charges.

Which is it???????????

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Really, where did you Show it???? cos all I see there is argument from incredulity/'Authoraaaaathay' a bit of handwavin and some obfuscation.

One of the central points of Eschenbach’s article was the fact that a lack of stations exist in Australia for compiling a temperature record. Using Darwin as an example, he claimed that:

“...that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data.
...
They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly.
...
The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.”

This claim is simply not true.

Furthermore, at no point does Eschenbach demonstrate that the Darwin data was manipulated, assuming that, in this case, Eschenbach is referring to insidious practice in using the term ‘manipulated’. He has not demonstrated that wrong-doing has taken place, he has simply compared the ‘raw’ data with the adjusted and assumed that something untoward is going on.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also aint it a bit disengenuous to suggest we Dismiss someone elses Report because it may contain 'Dodgy material'....

Examine the report yourself if you want – I did post the link so others could view it. I merely chose the Eschenbach article, which appears under the section heading of “Case Studies in Data Manipulation”, as an example. In the second case study (“New Zealand Warms to Warming”), the authors compile their own temperature record for New Zealand and, in doing so, remark on ‘raw’ temperature records from individual stations:

“...the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.”

Based on? What exactly? Again, the implication is that the data ‘looks’ ok, therefore no adjustments should be required.

Case 3 (“Other Examples of Temperature Adjustment”) kicks off with:

“Temperature adjustments are often made to US stations that are hard to explain but invariably increase the apparent warming.”

A series of graphs follow, with, once again, the implication being that unnecessary adjustments are being made to artificially exaggerate warming trends. However, at no point is it actually demonstrated that something untoward is taking place – the authors simply assume that there is. Hence, I am dismissing this report on the basis that it contains little (if anything) in the way of factual evidence for insidious data manipulation on the part of climatologists.

djpbarry wrote: »

One of the central points of Eschenbach’s article was the fact that a lack of stations exist in Australia for compiling a temperature record. Using Darwin as an example, he claimed that:

“...that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data.
...
They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly.
...
The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.”

This claim is simply not true.

Furthermore, at no point does Eschenbach demonstrate that the Darwin data was manipulated, assuming that, in this case, Eschenbach is referring to insidious practice in using the term ‘manipulated’. He has not demonstrated that wrong-doing has taken place, he has simply compared the ‘raw’ data with the adjusted and assumed that something untoward is going on.
Examine the report yourself if you want – I did post the link so others could view it. I merely chose the Eschenbach article, which appears under the section heading of “Case Studies in Data Manipulation”, as an example. In the second case study (“New Zealand Warms to Warming”), the authors compile their own temperature record for New Zealand and, in doing so, remark on ‘raw’ temperature records from individual stations:

“...the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.”

Based on? What exactly? Again, the implication is that the data ‘looks’ ok, therefore no adjustments should be required.

Case 3 (“Other Examples of Temperature Adjustment”) kicks off with:

“Temperature adjustments are often made to US stations that are hard to explain but invariably increase the apparent warming.”

A series of graphs follow, with, once again, the implication being that unnecessary adjustments are being made to artificially exaggerate warming trends. However, at no point is it actually demonstrated that something untoward is taking place – the authors simply assume that there is. Hence, I am dismissing this report on the basis that it contains little (if anything) in the way of factual evidence for insidious data manipulation on the part of climatologists.

1941 there should be a lot of records from different airfields much closer to Darwin than Daly's if anyone card to look, but the didnt they just picked and chose the ones that best suited tehir prejudice

Mahatma coat wrote: »

1941 there should be a lot of records from different airfields much closer to Darwin than Daly's if anyone card to look, but the didnt they just picked and chose the ones that best suited tehir prejudice

Did "they" indeed? So how did Halls Creek A, which shows no statistically significant upward or downward trend (in fact, most of the records, in isolation, do not show a statistically significant trend, but anyway), make it into the Australian mix?

I thought even Professor Jones has now admitted that there has been no warming, whether of the global kind or or any other kind. And the IPCC has been thoroughly discredited all over the world, and even denounced by it's former chairman, and its only a very few diehards which still appear to believe the pronouncements of the IPCC. Everyone else seems to realise that its a political organisation which tries to skew the facts, or make them up, to fit its political aims.

To argue about the location of weather stations seems pointless, as the whole edifice arguing about global warming has collapsed for lack of evidence and for making claims which are not true.

djpbarry wrote: »

Did "they" indeed? So how did Halls Creek A, which shows no statistically significant upward or downward trend (in fact, most of the records, in isolation, do not show a statistically significant trend, but anyway), make it into the Australian mix?

In which case why do they show an upward trend when agregated together?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I thought even Professor Jones has now admitted that there has been no warming...

Both you and I know that is not true (because you've already posted something similar on another thread).

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

And the IPCC has been thoroughly discredited all over the world...

No it hasn't and even if it had, the IPCC does not conduct original research, does it? Discussing the basis for said research is still perfectly valid, is it not?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

To argue about the location of weather stations seems pointless, as the whole edifice arguing about global warming has collapsed for lack of evidence and for making claims which are not true.

No, it hasn't. If you're going to argue that it has, then I suggest you do more than climb up on your soapbox and repeat the same opinions you've already posted on other threads, which adds nothing of value to the discussion.

Deleted User wrote: »

In which case why do they show an upward trend when agregated together?

I was referring specifically to this set of records rather than speaking generally, but anyway...

I’m not a climatologist, so I don’t know for certain how the records are aggregated. However, if you have a series of ‘noisy’ sources, each of which exhibits a similar underlying trend (statistically significant or otherwise), then averaging over all sources should reduce the noise to reveal the underlying trend more clearly; the greater the number of reliable sources you have, the more reliable the end result. Conversely, if each of the sources is completely random, then their average should be zero (i.e. no underlying trend).

Just noticed that the List Has Dilli on it, in fairness now, Dilli :eek:

yeah a good representation of the Climate areound Darwin that :rolleyes:

Halls Creek seems to be a reasonably decent pointer of the tempratures in the area, as it would be most reflective of the prevailing terrain and climatic conditions in the region.
Daly too, Wyndham is a port , and some of them are Small islands in the Gulf.

So that being a random sample, and there being no overall trend, why does it return an agtgregate increase unless some creative mathematics are employed,

Oh and Please Explain it like we're five, That is think about the Single point you want to make and MAKE THAT POINT, less of the bamboozlement and handwaving and general 'Oh its not my fault you cant understand'

How about that, a nice straight answer??

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So that being a random sample...

It’s a list of stations within 750 km of Darwin – nothing more.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

...and there being no overall trend...

No, that’s not what I said. What I said was individual records do not appear to show a significant trend.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Oh and Please Explain it like we're five, That is think about the Single point you want to make and MAKE THAT POINT, less of the bamboozlement and handwaving and general 'Oh its not my fault you cant understand'

How about that, a nice straight answer??

I’m sorry, you seem to be mistaking me for a spokesperson from GISS? What’s with the attitude?

If you want to learn more about how temperature records are analysed, then you can read about it on the GISS website. All of the relevant papers are freely available:

Current Analysis Method

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included.

Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency; we switch to a later version as soon as a new complete year is available.

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I thought even Professor Jones has now admitted that there has been no warming, whether of the global kind or or any other kind.

No.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

See the Murphy 2009 report especially.

Regeradless, warming is definitely happening.

And the IPCC has been thoroughly discredited all over the world, and even denounced by it's former chairman, and its only a very few diehards which still appear to believe the pronouncements of the IPCC. Everyone else seems to realise that its a political organisation which tries to skew the facts, or make them up, to fit its political aims.

Comments like this aren't helping your case.

The IPCC are just a gathering of experts on the matter of Climate Change, nothing more.

What really bothers me is that all your posts go to extremes, oh the IPCC HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED, THIS HAS NO CREDIBILITY, etc. You don't come off as being interested in having a mature debate, just reciting Daily Mail headlines. Every time one of your points or ad hominems is shot down, you just carry on as if nothing happens - the same seems to be true of the "Climategate" followers in general. If you actually stuck to the science, we might get somewhere in a discussion.