Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW? - Page 5

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Saktoth » 11 Dec 2009, 08:28

0 x

User avatar
Decimator
Posts: 1118
Joined: 24 Jul 2005, 04:15

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Decimator » 11 Dec 2009, 17:49

Wilbefast, I want you to ask your father what evidence would disprove the theory of human caused climate change. Then tell us his answer.
0 x

User avatar
Panda
Posts: 2042
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 00:20

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Panda » 11 Dec 2009, 21:58

wilbefast wrote:It's categorically impossible to be sure - you can't prove this isn't all a dream, you can't prove I'm not a figment of your imagination: you can't prove squat.

There are these people though, who've dedicated their lives to studying these trends, and the overwhelming consensus among them is that Global Warming is happening, and that Global Warming is man-made. Of course they could be wrong! Of course they could be lying! They could also be space aliens or made of celery! I could be a trained Dolphin in a coma! You could be a brain in a jar! What seems more likely?
From what I've heard from my university science classes (for anyone who doesn't know, I'm a Biology education major), global warming is occurring and it is being accelerated by man. In scientific studies, scientists have gone to the north pole in a submarine under the ice cap and have measured the change in thickness of the ice over time. It has been melting. The ice burgs on the Antarctic continent have been melting at an alarming rate as well and that ice is much thicker and on top of land, not water.

Here's a helpful article, "GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN-MADE:
KEY POINTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2007 REPORT":

http://livinggreenbarrie.com/LvGnGlblWarmgIPCCRpt.pdf

According to this article summarizing the International Panel on Climate Change report that came out in 2007:

"We often have trouble accepting hard truths. Some people are just plain skeptical. Given the nonsense peddled in the daily media and on the Internet you canÔÇÖt blame people. While most of us agree that global temperatures have increased at a very rapid rate in the last century or so, many people donÔÇÖt like to admit that that we caused it."

"Global warming since 1750, the IPCC says, is "unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea levelÔÇØ, and we humans are the main cause."

"human activities such as increasing fossil fuel use, have generated over 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes and solar flares. Rapid increases in global methane and nitrous oxide, similarly, are mostly due to agriculture and deforestation."

"The predictable effects of global warming include more frequent and intense extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods and hurricanes. They are already happening, as predicted. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes for example have increased 75% since 1970."
0 x

User avatar
[TS]Lollocide
Posts: 324
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 18:24

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by [TS]Lollocide » 12 Dec 2009, 03:53

IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change is an organisation that exists because people in power believe in climate change. I can't be the only person to have actually thought that an organisation which is built on idea will staunchly defend that idea even if they know they are wrong, because nobody who is given power will willingly give up their power and most political organisations will never admit they are actually wrong.

More evidence to the point? If you offer a dissenting opinion to, say, gravity, people will be humored but will ignore you, because gravity is instantly provable. Offer a dissenting opinion on Climate Change and you'll be labeled a 'denier', akin to a holocaust denier and be trawled through the fucking gutter. This is not the scientific method we know and know. This has never been scientific and its never been anything other than a fear that is so vague that is easily played upon the masses without fear of retribution, because you can't disprove the disprovable.
0 x

User avatar
wilbefast
Posts: 255
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 18:04

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by wilbefast » 12 Dec 2009, 11:49

Decimator wrote:Wilbefast, I want you to ask your father what evidence would disprove the theory of human caused climate change. Then tell us his answer.
You're in luck - I generally talk to my parents on Skype on Saturday morning (their evening) :wink:

In a nutshell, the only thing that anyone can seriously dispute these days is the "Anthropogenic" part, which is based on 3 things:
- we are producing X amount of carbon.
- the planet is capable of "sinking" much less than X amount of carbon.
- the Green House effect.

So you'd need to disprove the Green House effect, prove that we're actually producing a lot less green-house gas than we think we are, or prove that there are sinks and feed-back loops we don't know about or that the ones we do know about are many times more effective than previous research has shown.
Obviously the last point is the one that seems the most likely, but many years of research have failed to come up with anything promising. Good luck :(
0 x

User avatar
Rayden
Posts: 377
Joined: 01 May 2005, 13:15

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Rayden » 12 Dec 2009, 13:16

Basically i really like some arguments of the opposing group, like "The sun does the climate not humans" .. a correct statement but it changes nothing :)

I am critical myself, but its obvious the climate is changing in last years (as the climate is always a pretty instable system, as long there is no warm period). It could be a natural change, but maybe it isn't, some guy on youtube made a nice video about our options:

the scientists are right - we do nothing -> Won't be a nice time
the scientists are right - we do something in time -> Good
the scientists are wrong - we do nothing -> much money wasted
the scientists are wrong - we do nothing -> Yay!

With all the money spent on useless stuff, i guess we can afford a little share of that money into renewable energy sources, even if there is still enough oil to burn for 50 more years (i'm sure of that). But we need oil for more much more important products than just burning it.
0 x

User avatar
[TS]Lollocide
Posts: 324
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 18:24

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by [TS]Lollocide » 12 Dec 2009, 14:22

Rayden wrote: Wel if aleins invade! This guys on utube made this video to help us:

the scientists are right - we do nothing -> we gt wipd out
the scientists are right - we do something in time -> day is saved!!!11
the scientists are wrong - we do nothing -> nuthin happens
the scientists are wrong - we do something> waste of cash, except we're now in space, so evrybdy wins!
That argument is the worst idea since bad ideas. and garlic chocolate.
0 x

User avatar
wilbefast
Posts: 255
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 18:04

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by wilbefast » 12 Dec 2009, 15:06

Hey, that was my argument, I said it first :shock:
Wilbefast wrote:(...) what's the worst that could happen if the scientists are wrong and we do what they say? We tighten our belts a bit and build some windmills when we could've kept on happily burning coal. And if they're right and we do nothing? Let's see... oh yeah, that's right: we all die.

Ready to bet your life on it?
[TS]Lollocide wrote:That argument is the worst idea since bad ideas. and garlic chocolate.
Nonsense! Garlic Chocolate is delicious - bet you've never even tried it :o

Bored now - I regret getting involved in this argument. It's like punching a sponge - each time you flatten it but somehow it just keeps re-inflating itself. Reminds of the evolution debate: some people are completely immune to reason. Maybe their parents had them vaccinated against it when they were young. That's pretty much what Sunday School is for. I know what I'm talking about: I went. Didn't work for me though (FML): apparently I have a very weak immune system when it comes to logic. I've been stricken with sense ever since. It's a chronic condition: It means I have trouble swallowing BS, that I'm allergic to ignorance. That I react badly to nonsense. That I can't cope with utter rot.

The only real problem here is that the internet gives the experts and the ignorant an equal footing. That's the only reason why, on the internet, there's any doubt at all about any of this. Same thing with television - the guy from Fox with a bachelor's degree in speaking-very-loudly and being-constantly-angry seems only slightly less credible than the guy with a PHD in Natural Science and Remote Sensing, when he should seem like what he is: a guy who is constantly angry and speak very loudly. There's no more doubt here than there is with evolution, than there is with the world being round. This is such a non-issue.

*Yawn* - I'm outta here, and not a post too soon either :roll:
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by luckywaldo7 » 12 Dec 2009, 15:46

News from the future:

Scientist discover that all the windmills they built are screwing with the climate, which apparently was dependent on the energy in the wind. Huge conflict erupts between those invested in wind energy and those invested in "alternate" energy sources.
0 x

User avatar
Rayden
Posts: 377
Joined: 01 May 2005, 13:15

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Rayden » 12 Dec 2009, 16:53

[TS]Lollocide wrote:Offer a dissenting opinion on Climate Change and you'll be labeled a 'denier', akin to a holocaust denier and be trawled through the fucking gutter.
Pretty bad example and if you read some of the "proofs" that climate change doesnt exist they contain terrible nonsense.
But i would like to read or see some interesting and founded counteropinon if you can give me a link.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14575
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Forboding Angel » 12 Dec 2009, 19:17

0 x

User avatar
Decimator
Posts: 1118
Joined: 24 Jul 2005, 04:15

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Decimator » 12 Dec 2009, 19:57

wilbefast wrote:
Decimator wrote:Wilbefast, I want you to ask your father what evidence would disprove the theory of human caused climate change. Then tell us his answer.
You're in luck - I generally talk to my parents on Skype on Saturday morning (their evening) :wink:

In a nutshell, the only thing that anyone can seriously dispute these days is the "Anthropogenic" part, which is based on 3 things:
- we are producing X amount of carbon.
- the planet is capable of "sinking" much less than X amount of carbon.
- the Green House effect.

So you'd need to disprove the Green House effect, prove that we're actually producing a lot less green-house gas than we think we are, or prove that there are sinks and feed-back loops we don't know about or that the ones we do know about are many times more effective than previous research has shown.
Obviously the last point is the one that seems the most likely, but many years of research have failed to come up with anything promising. Good luck :(
Let's have a look at the five atmospheric baseline observatories used by NOAA to track co2. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/

The following quotes are from http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... ies_d.html

"The Observatory at Point Barrow, Alaska is about 170 miles downwind from the Prudhoe Bay headquarters of the North Slope oil industry. It is therefore subject to a localized increase in man-made Air Pollution, including CO2 emissions."

"Barrow is also annually subject to several months of "Arctic Haze," which University of Alaska Geophysicist Ned Rozell indicates is from ex-Soviet and new Chinese "iron, nickel and copper smelters and inefficient coal-burning plants."


"Trinidad Head Observatory is on a Northern California peninsula jutting into the Pacific about twenty miles north of Eureka, CA. Like Samoa, Trinidad Head is subject to substantial vegetation-driven changes in CO2 levels from the surrounding temperate forests and wetlands. The prevailing winds come in off the Pacific, which are influenced by coal-happy China."


Mauna Loa, Hawaii is downwind of Kilauea.
(this is a paraphrase, since most of the linked article talks about this particular station and hence would be difficult for me to condense in the same manner)


"The American Samoa observatory is about 150 miles downwind from where the one-mile wide Nafanua volcano has emerged. The undersea volcano is described by University of Sydney marine scientist Dr. Adele Pile as producing an undersea environment with an acidic pH of 3 (similar to vinegar), carbon dioxide bubbling up "like champagne," and extremely hot venting water so toxic that "any life swimming into this pit immediately dies, except these amazing scavenging worms." Woods Hole oceanographers report they "discovered that hot, smoggy water from the crater was spilling over the top or through breaches in the crater rim and billowing outward. It formed a halo around the rim that was hundreds of feet thick and extended more than 4 miles." In addition, Samoa's lush tropical vegetation is a big daytime consumer of CO2 thus dropping CO2 levels sharply during the day and raising them sharply at night."


"The South Pole Observatory is just yards away from a power plant which burns jet fuel 365 days a year to provide electricity and heat for Amundsen Station."

"It is also about 800 miles from Antarctica's Mt. Erebus volcano, which has continuously erupted since 1972. Because the atmosphere's ability to carry water vapor is cut approximately in half by every ten-degree-C drop in temperature, the extremely low temperatures at the South Pole mean that only trace amounts of water vapor are in the atmosphere. CO2 mixes with water vapor in the atmosphere to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid), giving rainfall a slightly acidic pH and washing CO2 from the air. The uniquely dry and cold conditions of the South Pole prevent this from occurring, thus altering the natural atmospheric carbon elimination process and magnifying the effect of CO2 sources."
0 x

User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Neddie » 12 Dec 2009, 20:06

smoth wrote:
neddiedrow wrote:though I would like to see a switch over to hemp rather than pulp paper - stronger, cheaper, higher yield, faster growth, fewer resources consumed in production, fewer resources consumed in refinement...
I wrote a paper on this...
Really? Hell, might as well post it somewhere.
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Saktoth » 14 Dec 2009, 01:33

Forboding Angel wrote:Start here: http://www.surfacestations.org
Whats the chances green man has debunked this one too?

Oh pretty good id say.

Even using the stations that Watts says are reliable, the temperature record is almost identical to the record using all stations.
0 x

User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by KingRaptor » 14 Dec 2009, 06:41

grumble grumble strawmen grumble grumble ad hominem grumble grumble almost nobody discussing the actual issues
momfreeek wrote:
Forboding Angel wrote:Next you're going to tell me that the BBC is right wing biased? That's a laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOsLbsxO ... r_embedded
Indeed that does seem very unbiased. Then again all it shows is that there was some poor quality code on their system and some unidentified guy readily admits that he's crap at coding. So someone at a university (a student?) wrote some bad code.. whereas code released by NASA is of a high standard. This is not newsworthy.
The guy isn't an unidentified university student. He's Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris, whose specialties were listed on the CRU staff page as 'Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming'. Given the origins of the code and what it was likely used for, bugs and hacky fixes in it are a pretty serious problem.
Forboding Angel wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ ... ate_r.html << MUCH more detailed and technical analysis of the Sauce (You coders will probably prefer to read this one, even if you don't agree with the stance), and some fairly damning statements.
This is just going over that one point that they are using two sets of data to plot a graph. At first glance this does seem kind of dubious, but it doesn't go into any depth about the accuracy of the data sources or the final result.
"The trick" isn't what the American Thinker article focuses on, but if you're interested in that,it's explained here.

tl;dr: The Briffa reconstruction shows declining temperatures after ~1960, so to mask this problem (as it would cast doubt on the entire reconstruction) they graft the instrumental (i.e.. thermometer etc.) record on to it without labelling accordingly in the 1999 WMO statement. In the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment reports, the declining bit is simply truncated without notice (despite a certain reviewer telling them specifically not to do so in the 4AR).
0 x

User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by KingRaptor » 14 Dec 2009, 07:29

Saktoth wrote:
Forboding Angel wrote:Start here: http://www.surfacestations.org
Whats the chances green man has debunked this one too?

Oh pretty good id say.

Even using the stations that Watts says are reliable, the temperature record is almost identical to the record using all stations.
Response

(yeah, don't take the defendant's word at face value during a criminal trial, but the same applies to the plantiff)
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Saktoth » 17 Dec 2009, 08:40

The Briffa reconstruction is a tree ring reconstruction, its well known that tree rings diverge from actual temperatures after 1960- there are peer reviewed papers by reputable climate scientists on the issue. The problem with the decline isnt that our thermometers are all wrong and the world isnt warming, its that the tree ring records are wrong and diverge sharply from the thermometer record after 1960. Yes, this DOES cast doubt on the use of tree ring records to reconstruct past temperature. However, they do track very closely before this date, and it has been suggested that this divergence is a result of industrialization.

Either way, if we can no longer trust the tree rings, there are other method such as ice cores to reconstruct global temperature.

Potholer54 on 'Climategate' Part 1 Part 2

On Watts: Lots of claims of ad hominen attacks then his own article does nothing but investigate the character of Peter Sinclair and discuss copyright issues for its first half.

The only substantial claim is that of homogenization causing the bad data from leaking into the stations of the good data. I'd need to investigate this claim further. It seems that the principle is that the data of bad stations is corrected using the data from good stations: How would this effect the good stations?
0 x

User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by momfreeek » 17 Dec 2009, 13:56

KingRaptor wrote:The guy isn't an unidentified university student. He's Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris, whose specialties were listed on the CRU staff page as 'Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming'. Given the origins of the code and what it was likely used for, bugs and hacky fixes in it are a pretty serious problem.
ok, that sheds more light on the matter which the video completely left out
KingRaptor wrote:"The trick" isn't what the American Thinker article focuses on
yes it is.. its all about 'MikeÔÇÖs Nature trick' and 'hiding the decline'. I did read it.
0 x

User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by KingRaptor » 20 Dec 2009, 07:55

Saktoth wrote:However, they do track very closely before this date
The proxies track the instrumental record before the divergence because most of that time is the calibration period, where samples which do not match the instrumental record are (by definition) thrown out. You are remarking on the fact that, once all the red marbles have been removed from the jar, there are no more red marbles in it!
not quite a perfect analogy, but you get what I mean

Bonus exercise: Figure out why selecting the tree core samples in this manner (by comparing them to the instrumental record and discarding the ones that don't match) is statistically invalid (key words: spurious correlation)
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

Post by Saktoth » 22 Dec 2009, 04:54

So basically, fuck tree ring records, go with icecore samples?
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”