Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 Next
Comments 104251 to 104300:
-
Marcus at 11:03 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Yep, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics, & a copy of the original memo can be found here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/82/GCC_Primer_Draft.pdf It was reported on, in 2009, by the New York Times-but really should have been reported more widely at the time. Not surprisingly, the GCC disbanded in 2002-not long after this document came to light ;)! BTW, another useful quote from the same primer is this: "Lindzen' s hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change. -
Mela at 10:14 AM on 19 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Cheers, albatross. I also found some other documents which linked Seitz to Phillip Morris' denial efforts in the realm of environmental tobacco smoke. That post also disappeared when poptech's thread went down the memory-hole. It shows they were planning a 'Seitz Symposium' a year or so before the G. Marshall Institute released the 1994 document on global warming (which included comments on ETS and, as noted earlier, a gaggle of free-marketeer bugbears). And, of course, money. Funds from Jim Tozzi's group were passed to GMI (Seitz being a founder). Tozzi's group were funded by Phillip Morris. -
Albatross at 10:05 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Marcus @35, Wow. Do you have a source for that memo from the GCC? Thanks. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:02 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
To fydijkstra @15.... Who says, " Yes! It has revealed, that the IPCC hides uncertainties..." This was what I would consider stupid work (something I'm quite adept at) but here is what I find. From the IPCC AR4... In WG1 - chapter 1, I find 53 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 2, I find 207 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 3, I find 56 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 3, Supplementary materials, I find 9 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 4, I find 38 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 5, I find 36 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 6, I find 21 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 6, Supplementary materials, I find 0 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 7, I find 81 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 8, I find 60 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 8, Supplementary materials, crashed my browser. In WG1 - chapter 9, I find 295 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 9, Supplementary materials, I find 14 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 10, I find 248 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 10, Supplementary materials, I find 0 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 11, I find 252 instances for the word "uncertain." In WG1 - chapter 11, Supplementary materials, I find 2 instances for the word "uncertain." Total for WG1, the words, "uncertain," "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" occur 1,372 times. In a 940 page document that make the occurrence 1.45 times per page. I would suggest if the IPCC were trying to hide something about the uncertainties in climate change they are doing an incredibly poor job of it. Please don't make me do the other working groups. -
Albatross at 09:57 AM on 19 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Mela @102, That was brilliant! -
Mela at 09:47 AM on 19 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech, you might remember these quotes from an RJR document I found for you before that forum thread magically went poof (we never did find out what happened)... 1. "respond directly to fundamental attacks on our business", "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". 2. "Science really knows little about the causes and development mechanisms of chronic degenerative diseases imputed to cigarettes" 3. "The purpose of the RJR industries biomedical research program is to focus on the support of basic and applied scientific research regarding human, degenerative diseases." Smokin'! This was during an introductory speech by an RJR executive. Who were they introducing...(have a guess). As I outlined to you, RJR had more than one arm of their obfuscatory research. The CTR funded by most american tobacco companies funded direct research (to cast doubt) on the tobacco-health issue. The RJR research which Seitz oversaw had a slightly different slant, but a similar aim (cast doubt). As the quotes show, degenerative conditions were being linked to tobacco. Seitz research focused on such conditions. And RJR were keen to 'refute criticisms' of tobacco use. Cheers -
Marcus at 09:45 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
Ken Lambert, the reason these uncontroversial e-mails were released is abundantly clear. By releasing this information-out of context-during the Copenhagen Climate Summit, they were able to sow just enough immediate doubt to give International Leaders an excuse to not fix any targets for future emissions reductions. This agenda fit in very nicely with the goals of the fossil fuel industry-which makes them the most likely source of the hack (either them or one of their front organizations). Of course, once everyone had time to analyze the e-mails-in their full context, it became blindingly obvious that there was no evidence of deceit or conspiracy within them. -
Marcus at 09:31 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
fydijkstra. Whoever "leaked" those e-mails was not a whistle-blower, he/she was a computer hacker-i.e. a CYBER CRIMINAL. As such, the only thing they deserve is a nice long stint in a Federal Prison. Or can I assume you'd have no problem if I hacked your e-mails & leaked them online for all to see? (Given your desire for anonymity, even here, I'm guessing you'd hate it) Also, you want a real scandal-it was the failure of the press to report on the following Internal Memo (obtained *legally*, via an FOI request) of the Global Climate Coalition (a skeptic organization) which said-& I quote "The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow's hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither solar variability nor anomalies in the temperature record offer a mechanism for off-setting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were to double or quadruple." This proves that, like the tobacco industry, the Denial Industry doesn't *believe* its own denial! -
Norman at 09:10 AM on 19 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
#37 Tom Dayton I did look at the Real Climate explanation of chaos. They do not talk about how temperature can effect albedo. If the only effect on temperature where GHG then the point would be valid. Small changes in albedo (the sensitivity response to determine if a system is chaotic) also have a large effect on temperature. As far as I have read the effect of increasing temperature on albedo is not worked out. There will be more water vapor in the air...will this form more clouds and increase albedo a few % points driving temps down? -
Paul D at 09:07 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
fydijkstra: "Yes, there is broad consensus about the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But there is no consensus about whether the feed backs by clouds and water vapour are positive or negative." Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, it has a positive feedback. -
tobyjoyce at 09:07 AM on 19 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech, #50 The Marchall Institutes's alleged "rebuttal" of the Oreskes-Conway book has a sort of "No, we didn't .... Oh, yes you did ... No, we didn't" back-and-forth flavour about it. they virtually repeat Oreskes-Conway's account of the facts, but putting a benign spin on every action. As a reader, admittedly with my own bias, I find the Oreskes-Conway descsription to be the more credible. -
Norman at 09:07 AM on 19 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
#34 muoncounter I agree with your statement: "So can small GHG changes, as this calculator clearly demonstrates. And this calculator demonstrates that temperature response to albedo is nearly linear -- systems described by linear function are hardly chaotic." Temperature response to albedo is linear as is temperature response to GHG levels. Look at it the other way, that is where I see the nonlinear and chaotic response. How does temperature effect albedo? This is a harder question to answer. Cooler Northern climate generate the snowfall that is highly reflective and will drastically increase the local albedo in the local area. Globally it may decrease the albedo by 1%. However the bigger albedo effect would be with the clouds. If the climate cools in the Northern regions (higher albedo from increased snow) like during an ice age but the oceans are still fairly warm (from the previous warm cycle) you may get an increase of cloud formation all around (still plenty of water vapor from the warm oceans but now a lot colder air to lift the moisture up to form clouds as a cold front moves through). This increased cloud cover acts to cool the Earth more and the decline in temp becomes steep and drops several degrees in a relative short time frame. As the Earth's overall temperature goes down the oceans begin to cool. Due to the heat capacity of water, the time lag is long. Once the ocean's are cool enough, less water evaporates and cloud formation really becomes significantly less and the albedo drops to much lower levels allowing much more solar radiation in to be absorbed by oceans gradually warming them and ending the ice age. When the oceans get warm enough the cloud formation reaches levels we see today and the albedo averages out to around 0.3. I am not saying this is what happens or takes place, I am using the above scenerio to point out how temperatures could have a nonlinear and drastic effect on albedo, which then will feedback and greatly effect the temperature. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:38 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
Re: Berényi Péter (33) Your comment was deleted because it was deemed in violation of the Comments Policy; specifically due to your implication that because Dr. Rajendra Pachauri lived in a home that you perceived to be beyond the means of his current income that he therefore must have "missed" declaring a "hidden" source of income. I find that insinuation of dishonesty repugnant; a man of your intellect should be above conduct of that sort. As far as the moderated comment you question, I was moderating at that time & wrote that comment; a comment which you still have left the terms of which unfulfilled. SoundOff noticed the missing of the kerfuffle noise surrounding Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and summarized it, replete with a link to Monbiot's post from which SoundOff derived his quote. I have read and re-read both SoundOff's comment and Monbiot's post several times and fail to see to what you are taking issue with. So, please share the details of why you feel SoundOff's comment violates the Comments Policy, because (call me slow) I'm not seeing it. In the future when moderating, I shall identify myself so that others do not blame John for my moderating. The Yooper -
kdkd at 08:10 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
fydijkstra #22 ..."no consensus about whether the feed backs by clouds and water vapour are positive or negative"... And absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the substantial negative feedbacks required to offset the effect of increasing CO2 levels. What was your point again? -
Berényi Péter at 08:06 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
As far as I can see no one has demonstrated in any way how my deleted comment, which had links in it, was in error. And that with a linked source proof of its fault not even on the wish list. On the other hand, it was a clear demonstration of how #1 misrepresents facts. If I may ask, do not use double standards, please. Thanks.Re: Moderator Response to #28: Please demonstrate how comment #1 in this thread is in error; as always, provide a linked source proof. Thanks! -
Alec Cowan at 07:38 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
RSVP wrote: Ironically, the only way for AGW proponents to ultimately "prove" their theory is for global warming to actually happen. It must be very frustrating therefore to only be detecting +0.16 degrees C/decade, or +0.016 degrees per year, a value that competes hardily with measurement noise.You used "hardily" on purpose, don't you? You forgot to tell it is +0.0013 degrees per month, +0.000044 degrees per day, 29 degrees Fahrenheit per millenium, +0.000000005 degrees per second, 5,500 years away of hypothetical boiling oceans and so on? What do you meant by that. Say it clearly -what includes quantifying noise-. -
caerbannog at 07:24 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
"Climategate" summarized: When papers containing errors that scientists would flunk their undergraduate students for are published and used as political weapons against them, said scientists are likely to get very cranky. That's pretty much all that the hacked email messages proved. -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele - To be more specific, the thermal radiation from an object is: P = e * s * A * T^4 Where: P: Power e: Emissivity (fractional power relative to a theoretic black body) s: Stefan–Boltzmann constant A: Object Area T: Temperature Kelvin There is no neighbor term, no incoming radiation term in this relationship. -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele - Your statement "it feels the presence of the other bodies and it changes his behavior" is incorrect. Outgoing thermal radiation is only dependent upon the object temperature (scaling as T^4), emission spectra, and the size and shape of the object. There is no neighbor effect, and no surface EM interference that affects the thermal radiation. Please read the Wiki Thermal Radiation page for a good overview. -
Tom Dayton at 05:59 AM on 19 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele, one body "feels the presence" of the other body? Halloween has passed already.... -
Michele at 05:53 AM on 19 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
KR, Yes, if the emitting body is alone in the vacuum, No if it isn’t more alone because it feels the presence of the other bodies and it changes his behavior that’s tied to resultant EM at any point of its surface. The temperature change occurs only if the integral(resultant_flux*dt) isn’t zero. You aren’t allowed to add two or more fluxes of components waves because the energy carried is proportional to square of field. Doing so the energy would be destroyed as is always (SumEi)^2 > Sum(Ei^2). -
Tom Dayton at 05:31 AM on 19 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Norman, see RealClimate's Chaos Theory and Global Warming, and Butterflies, Tornadoes, and Climate Modelling. -
Norman at 04:33 AM on 19 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
#35 DSL I am not promoting the webpage. But the calculator is probably sound. It matches well with the one I linked to. I have that one for scaddenp because it includes atmopshere as well as GHG effects. -
Marco at 04:06 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Argus, you are essentially recommending that scientists are to be dishonest in their correspondence. Note that I myself have a journal on my blacklist: I will not review papers for it, nor allow any paper with my name on it be submitted to that journal. Petty? Perhaps, but I do not accept the unprofessional behavior of that journal with respect to my earlier submissions. I am most certainly not helping that journal improve its scientific stature by submitting my papers to it. I know plenty of other journals that do handle papers professionally. The same story is obvious in the UEA e-mails: several scientists unhappy with the unprofessional behavior of a journal, publishing so obviously flawed papers (and being pretty bad at allowing comments to such papers, it should be added). Your final quote is due to frustration. I think there are quite a few people who have once said "I'd rather be dead!", without coming even close to seriously implying they would kill themselves! -
Marco at 03:48 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
Ken, as I noted, you are apparently rather ignorant on human nature. Scientists can get pretty fed up with continuous attempts to harass them, and taking everything they say out of context. If anything, climategate is very obvious evidence of taking things out of context by the 'dissidents'. McIntyre went as far as removing the middle part of an e-mail which completely destroyed his argument, put it back when called out by Deepclimate but kept his claim, but hardly any of his accolytes called him out on his narrative being wrong. Regarding human nature: when humans are very frustrated, they sometimes come with rash remarks, which they do not necessarily have thought through. It's not a matter of wishing to hide bad things, it's a matter of being frustrated with one harassing request after the other. Jones is just one of those scientists who wants to be left alone, and not continuously be accused of dishonesty, cooking the books, and whatnot. -
Albatross at 02:51 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
KL, Readers here, for the most part, are learned and well informed on the issues of the day. Yet you insist in making baseless and at times false accusations. Personally, I find it offensive and insulting that you would be here, at SS of all places, continuing to smear the scientists with long debunked spin, despite six inquiries ruling (mostly-- there was some valid criticism) in the scientists' favour. Please don't try and argue that they were all "whitewashes", we've quite had enough of the conspiracy theories the past year. "The best layman's summary I have read is by Terence Corcoran of Canada's National Post. Posting that was a strategic error on your part. Corocoran clearly has an agenda against climate scientists, and frequently smears them. In fact, Dr. Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post (including Corcoran) for libel (and for fabrication) for that very reason. The National Post is, it seems, only accountable to the courts, they do not even make their code of practice available, and they are not a member of any professional print media association-- so it is hopeless trying to challenge their misinformation or hold them accountable. So you, quoting Corcoran here in your defense, is not doing you any good. It shows that you would rather take the word of a second-rate journalist with an ideological agenda, over the findings of six inquiries. Why? Perhaps it is because they are telling you what you wish to hear? Now is there any of the science discussed in the illegally released emails which you claim refutes the theory of AGW/ACC? Keeping in mind that issues with the science have all been discussed openly in the scientific literature already (e.g., divergence problem and "missing heat")? -
DSL at 02:36 AM on 19 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Interestingly, Norman points us to a website--junkscience.com--that was created by tobacco money to promote industry-friendly "science." At the same time, Frederick Seitz is under fire in another thread for his role in promoting the idea that tobacco use is healthy. -
JMurphy at 02:21 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
The only noticeable change that I have observed one year on, is that so-called skeptics are being more desperate, wilder in their accusations and shallower in their arguments. Is it because they put all their faith in these emails, expecting AGW theory to come tumbling down in revelations of hidden secrets, forbidden knowledge and furtive conspiracies between scientists, governments and the UN ? Strangely, it would appear so ! -
Daniel Bailey at 02:12 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
Re: Ken Lambert (26)"Did not quite work out that way - and so the hackers crimes in exposure of these emails was on balance in the public interest. "
So if a crime was committed, but deemed by even one person to be acceptable, said crime becomes an act of public service...? Interesting. By that logic, if a hypothetical "hacker" were to hack SkS and delete every one of your comments you've ever made at this site because they disagreed with a few of them, that would be OK, right? Quite frankly, you ceased to contribute anything substantive to discussions here some time ago. It didn't used to be that way; but that's the way it's worked out. The Yooper -
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
Michele - The outgoing thermal flux from an object is strictly a property of the object emission spectra and temperature, not a gradient. Changes in temperature, on the other hand, are due to the differences between outgoing energy and incoming energy, and that incoming energy differs depending on surroundings, which is where relative positioning and nearby objects matter. -
muoncounter at 01:59 AM on 19 November 2010Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
#33: "Small albedo changes can cause large climate changes." So can small GHG changes, as this calculator clearly demonstrates. And this calculator demonstrates that temperature response to albedo is nearly linear -- systems described by linear function are hardly chaotic. Do you have any idea what it would take to change the planet's average albedo by a few percent for a significant period of time? Even the Pinatubo eruption produced only a short term climate effect. While the global cooling after Pinatubo was not surprising, the observed winter warming over Northern Hemisphere continents in the two winters following the eruption is now understood as a dynamic response to volcanically produced temperature gradients in the lower stratosphere from aerosol heating and ozone depletion, and to reduced tropospheric storminess. To obtain the kind of albedo change you keep postulating, how many Pinatubos would you need? On the other hand, we have measured the increase in GHGs. The junksci calculator you reference shows how effective that is as a control know on global temperature, as do articles here. What part of this isn't clear? -
JMurphy at 01:52 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Argus wrote : "... Academics should not be criticised..." "I think that quote pretty much sums up the reaction from the scientific establishment and their 'independent enquiries'." Shocking misuse of a quote, which anyone can see the truth of by simply going to point 6 in the main body above : Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. That's right : according to some, this comment from the UK Government's response to Muir Russell means that all the enquiries were biased and part of the conspiracy against so-called skeptics. Not. -
Berényi Péter at 01:48 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
As correction attempt was deleted promptly, I request #1 to be deleted as well.Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) Please demonstrate how comment #1 in this thread is in error; as always, provide a linked source proof. Thanks! -
JMurphy at 01:44 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
fydijkstra wrote : "Climategate has revealed what climate realists allready knew for a long time: the science is not settled at all, and even the hard core of the IPCC supporters is highly in doubt." I don't know about "climate realists" (whoever they might be - at a guess, those who don't accept AGW ?) but anyone with even a passing interest in this subject knows that not everything is settled - after all, why does anyone bother bringing out related papers on the subject any more ? If everything was settled (apart from the physics, of course), so-called skeptics would have to look elsewhere for their political kicks. But who are these "hard core of the IPCC supporters" who are "highly in doubt" ? Do you have any concrete examples that don't include interpretations of emails ? fydijkstra wrote : "Climategate has certainly changed the understanding of how these hard core climate scientists do their utmost to hide the uncertainty and to prevent that other views are published" Oh no, not back to the conspiracy theories again, are we ? Again, do you have any concrete examples that don't include interpretations of emails ? fydijkstra wrote : "And that fits perfectly to some of the recommendations of the IAC report about the IPCC: "3. Characterizing and communicating uncertainties, particularly with regard to the level-of-understanding and likelihood scales used in the IPCC reports; 5. Increasing transparency, including explicit documentation that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered;" Unfortunately not. That fits perfectly the interpretation that is given at a site called Moose and Squirrel. Or was it wilbert1755 ? Or did you copy it from somewhere else ? Perhaps you should actually read the report and come to your own conclusions, in your own words ? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 01:27 AM on 19 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
... skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate' The answer is simple: Skeptics - scientists simply do not deal with the scandals and ... science. For example, Marcus wrote: ... Sun has just recently come out of the deepest solar minimum for over 100 years-after a 30-year period of general decline in the sunspot trend. Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current, Lockwood, 2010: “Solar outputs during the current solar minimum are setting record low values for the space age. Evidence is here reviewed that this is part of a decline in solar activity from a grand solar maximum and that the Sun has returned to a state that last prevailed in 1924.” 2010 - 1924 = 100 years !? In addition: Activity on multi-millennial time scale (Usoskin, Solanki, Kovaltsov, 2010): “The Sun spends ~3/4 of the time at moderate activity, ~1/6 in a grand minimum and ~1/10 in a grand maximum state. The modern solar activity is a grand maximum.” The sun is still so much more active now than at any period of at least 7 thousand. years ...Moderator Response: The Sun's maximum, which was reached decades ago, cannot be responsible for the more recent warming. Evidence is that the Earth's energy imbalance has continued to increase. See the "It's the Sun" argument's green "Response" box under this comment by Barry. Or skip directly to the detailed post titled Climate Time Lag. -
JMurphy at 00:27 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
Ken Lambert, you are getting more and more desperate in your attempts to see conspiracies everywhere. The reason the emails were leaked was to sow discord and disinformation, by the selective release of certain emails, often without the follow-ups or responses from those they were sent to. There was no attempt to suppress so-called dissenters : just a desire to see correct scientific practice being presented - something I would imagine you would agree with...as along as it doesn't go against your anti-AGW beliefs, of course. There is no hidden weakness in AGW theory, which you seem to believe is presently out of reach (due to that conspiracy against the heroic dissenters) and just waiting to be magically revealed; and, despite what you believe about yourself, I have yet to see anything on this site which does any damage to a theory which will need more than a few blog posts to even barely scratch. Try to stick to facts, not what you need to believe - and emails taken out of context are not facts to anyone but those who wish to deny AGW. As Gavin Schmidt has written : There is an ill-advised suggestion [to delete emails], but there is no evidence that any email that was responsive to a FOIA request actually was deleted. Keep chewing on the same old bones if you want to, but don't expect to be taken seriously anymore. -
JMurphy at 00:05 AM on 19 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
...(Pielke Jr and Harold Brooks) informed you that THEIR papers did not do for your little list what you thought they did...Moderator Response: OK, this is enough (or more than enough) discussion of Poptech's list of papers. Further comments on this subject from all sides will be deleted. -
Ken Lambert at 00:04 AM on 19 November 2010Climategate a year later
Moderator John: Response: "one man's heroic whistleblower is another man's thief" There is no evidence that the emails were leaked by a whistleblower. On the contrary, the current evidence available (which is scant because the investigation is ongoing) is that the emails were stolen from an external hacker. Combine this with the fact that the first public introduction of the Climategate emails was the Real Climate server being illegally hacked and the emails uploaded to their server - hardly the work of a heroic whistleblower. There were also attempted theft of other climate lab's servers at the same time. The coordinated nature of the Climategate smear campaign indicates this was an external job. OK John, hacking of a computer is a crime in some jurisdiction and it happens with things like Wikileaks - again it depends on what harm is done and to whom. Reputations - not human lives were put at grave risk. Had the hacked Climategate emails been found to be boring academic 'to and fro' with the occasional expletive all ending in happy agreement between the world's leading climate scientists - then they would have provided poor fodder for a deliberate smear campaign. The scientists involved could have pointed to their rectitude, honesty and professionalism, and to the perfidy of the hackers. Did not quite work out that way - and so the hackers crimes in exposure of these emails was on balance in the public interest. -
Ken Lambert at 23:44 PM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Marco #23 "In short, Ken, your argument lacks substance, and indicates some ignorance of human nature". Indeed I am a dunce in so many areas. The best layman's summary I have read is by Terence Corcoran of Canada's National Post. Here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-2.aspx#ixzz15dTZUaWJ Corcoran claims he has read every word of the first 5 years emails and to my mind the most damning excerpt is this: Quote: "The emails portray embattled scientists fighting desperately to interfere with official FOI processes. One now widely-circulated email, by Mr. Jones, asked Mr. Mann: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith [Briffa] will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment — minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” In this email, Mr. Jones is asking key scientists who worked on AR4 — the 4th Assessment Report on the science of climate change produced by the IPCC in 2007 — to erase all emails related to that report. Caspar Ammann is a scientist at the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric research." Endquote For those who think I am a dunce on human nature - perhaps they could explain why leading scientists in the course of their legitimate email discussions with each other would want to erase all the email communications involving IPCC AR4?? IPCC AR4 was produced to convince the world's leaders that massive urgent action on reducing CO2 emissions was imperative to save the planet from damaging global warming. Not a trivial document. There is only one explanation - they knew that they had something to hide which would not stand public scrutiny. And that something was their expressions of honest doubts about the data, the collusion to suppress dissent in publications and some of the unlovely bastardry that academics get up to. -
Ed Davies at 23:22 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
RSVP #11 Didn't you previously make the point of your first paragraph? Did you have a problem with my response? -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 23:03 PM on 18 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
Robert, Take a look at the Radiative Heat Transfer articles on my site. I have been working on putting together simple examples that accurate, but easier to understand. I would appreciate your perspective. Challenging peer review makes papers and articles better. I don't argue that increasing CO2 doesn't alter the forcing somewhat, but the effect of that has not properly described. I want to get the foundation established that everyone agrees upon in easy to understand terminology. I did look at Van Den Broeke, but couldn't get the full Khan article. One day I will clone myself and have enough time. :-D Please don't mod this comment as it is a reply to Robert... -
JMurphy at 22:57 PM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech wrote : "Which author told me that their papers do not support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm? Be specific and make sure they use the word "alarm"." Once again, you try to determine events in the real world through the filter of your own personal brand of skepticism - but that's being kind : truthfully, you are in denial of the facts of AGW and the facts concerning shameful 'scientific' involvement with the tobacco industry. I need only repeat that two authors (Pielke Jr and Harold Brooks) informed you that your papers did not do for your little list what you thought they did, i.e. argue against "AGW alarmism" (using your own personal definition). I realise you told them they were wrong and that you were going to decide what their own papers meant to you, but that is another story done to death elsewhere. More about Seitz here, here, here, and here. -
XPLAlN at 22:49 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
fydijkstra: "there is no consensus about whether the feed backs by clouds and water vapour are positive or negative." Yes there is. The net effect is positive feedback. See this youtube clip also -
Argus at 22:30 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
6. "... Academics should not be criticised..." I think that quote pretty much sums up the reaction from the scientific establishment and their 'independent enquiries'. One thing the so-called theft of emails has taught the scientists involved is, hopefully, that you should not put comments in your correspondance that contain things like: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal", and: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone". -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:10 PM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
BP @ 69 - the key point was that your claim that induction is not scientific is simply incorrect, it would be better if we resolved that issue rather than be diverted by more tangential matters. Is the theory of evolution scientific? Having said which, it is clearly not true that the theory of CO2 induced warming is non-falisifiable. All it would take would be a period with increasing radiative forcing due to CO2 without warming, that was sufficiently extended for the lack of warming to be attributable to the natural variability of the climate, and that could not be attributed to the action of other known forcings. AGW theory is directly falsifiable by observations and hence is a scientific theory. For a concrete example - a thirty year period of cooling, with increasing CO2 and all other forcings remaining approximately constant would kill AGW theory stone dead. It is also not that case that forcing is not adequately defined - see e.g. the definition given in the glossary of the IPCC WG1 report. You appear not to understand the reason for "efficacy" - it simply allows the effect on climate of different forcings to be expressed in terms of the effect of CO2 - it is a help in comparing the relative importance of different factors, nothing more. As to the paper you site, a theory isn't falsified by the observation of something that the theory predicts, so that is no indication that the theory is not falsifiable. It is just an observation that doesn't falsify the theory. -
Michele at 21:50 PM on 18 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
A blanket adds a sheet to composite multilayer system that protects our epidermis by surrounding cold air increasing/decreasing its thermal resistance/conductance and so requiring a higher skin temperature to dispose of the same metabolic heat. The GH effect explained with the idea of a blanket works well and doesn’t contradict the 2^ law because the energy flows always along the straight and narrow path towards decreasing temperatures. I think an EM blanket (a standing wave that captures and stores back radiation together part of forward radiation without destroying anything, operating upon homogenous physical properties) that cuts down the radiative conductance of atmosphere, brings to surface temperature increase and doesn’t contradict the 2^ law. The problem arises when the blanket working is explained whit a sort of walking back and forth of the energy carried by radiation because all that seems unreal. A radiating molecule can naturally emit its photon but it isn’t able to excite itself . I notice that the radiative transfer theory, agreeing to heating of hotter body produced by back radiation, is the one physical theory that is characterized by a sort of omnipotence since both Planck’s and SB’s relationships assume an absolute (rather than relative) significance since any body radiates, always and however, regardless of environmental conditions. Not at all. That doesn’t make much sense. The radiative flux is physically analogous to any other flux induced within a transport phenomenon that’s always founded on the gradient of the driving physical property (pressure, temperature, altitude, electric potential, etc.), not on its absolute value. -
RSVP at 21:48 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
fydijkstra #22 The word nomination implies name. A tomb to the Unknown Whistle Blower is maybe more appropriate. -
fydijkstra at 21:35 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Re kdkd #16 Yes, there is broad consensus about the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But there is no consensus about whether the feed backs by clouds and water vapour are positive or negative. And that makes the difference between almost no warming in the next century and 6 degrees of warming. If you like to call that a detail, that's up to you! Do you really think that the rest of my post is incorrect? Did the IAC make these recommendations unnecessarily? Re MarkR # 15. I have read many scientific papers and yes, they are sometimes honest about the uncertainties. But mostly these uncertainties are communicated in a very vague way. In the IPCC-reports the uncertainties are played down as far as possible: deeply hidden in the enormous texts, but not prominent in the summaries. By the way: it seems, that the wistle blower who leaked the Climategate documents is still unknown. This is a travesty! He or she should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Price! -
MarkR at 21:26 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
RE: #14 RSVP: 0.16 C / decade (assuming that figure is accurate) is only undetectable against noise over a short time period (a decade or two iirc). The warming of almost 0.5 C from the end of the 70s is statistically detectable as not noise. The rate also agrees with projections from climate models that give overall sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 of 2-4.5 C, but not with those that have significantly lower sensitivity. Of course, if we only warm 1.7 C this century, that's not going to be a huge problem. But we should expect greenhouse heating to increase: CO2 is up by 40% in 150 years: by 2100 "business as usual" increases it by something like 130% in 90 years. The Radiative Forcing over the last 150 years is approaching 1.8 W m^-2 from CO2. Over the next 90 years we expect to add another 4.5 W m^-2. Is it any wonder that we expect the rate of heating to increase? -
RSVP at 21:13 PM on 18 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
kdkd #17 Is the purpose of the model to prove that CO2 is driving climate, or to predict and understand global warming?
Prev 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 Next
