|
U-Know! Forum » Climate-Cat's out of the Bag! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 14:05
|
||
|
Sorry PMM, trying to cope with the huge amount of stuff being released and hitting the boards right now. The BBC report is woefully inadequate, but that's not surprising given that the BBC's Richard Black is quoted in the mails as part of all of this. 'biased broadcasting corporation' perhaps? From one of the texts: "Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article." So, the BBC are not allowed to post 2 sides of the argument???? WTF? This is a good summary: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html well worth a browse... And, this quote showing the edits is unreal: "Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: '(When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?') when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter (it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know') " The bits in ( ) are the bits that are struckthrough for the eventual report and show a whole context change!! HH doesn't allow strikethroughs to show.. That text was in preparation for a report to the bloody IPCC!! This is a really good write-up on how the different sides of MainStream Media are reporting the whole issue: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/ They say there's much more to be released, I await it and will plough through with interest.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Nov 22, 2009, 23:02
|
||
|
If you're trawling through right wing libertarian blogs for unbiased information, can I suggest you're wasting your time? As I've pointed out, the e-mails do not suggest that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, no matter how much the likes of Dellingpole and Melanie Phillips would like us to think. And, as I've also pointed out, the CRU are not the only organisation collecting data. Are NASA also in on the act? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371773.stm
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Nov 26, 2009, 12:04
Nov 23, 2009, 11:46
|
||
|
jshell wrote: if this is true it will damage the case for CO2 controls and, well, just about everything to curb temperature rises. Er, no it won't. It doesn't show anything that would do that. Rather like heading this thread 'cat's out of the bag', you are vastly overstating the importance of the emails and blatantly misrepresenting what they contain. They do not show that climate change is not being driven by human activities. jshell wrote: If you ignore links to this revalation, then it's just sitting in the dark and believing in something with blind faith...a bit like religion. That would be true, were it not for the fact that the leaked emails don't show any cover-up of human-induced climate change being a hoax, and for the fact that there is overwhelming data from scientists all around the world that is accepted as fact by 99% of climatologists and meteorologists. These things put it well beyond the realm of faith. You are either too dim to realise that difference, or you are smart enough to but want to miscast it in that light. I wonder which it is. As far back as 1995 scientists advising the Global Climate Coalition - a fossil-industries climate denial body - said plainly that: "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied". Yet those industries continued to deny climate change was happening, and after that became irrefutable in the public mind they switched to saying well yes, it was happening, but it wasn't human-induced. The continuing job of the climate denier is not to show climate change isn't happening, but to say that there's some doubt as to whether humans are responsible. The scientific consensus level is similar to that saying that there's a link between tobacco and cancer. So having someone misrepresent minor material as proof that the entire realm of scientific evidence may be fraudulent, with links not to any data from scientific bodies but to right-wing denialist blogs, well, you see what that looks like, don't you? jshell wrote: I'll say it again, make up your own mind. And I'll say it again All you have to do is answer four simple questions. 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Nov 23, 2009, 12:44
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: if this is true it will damage the case for CO2 controls and, well, just about everything to curb temperature rises. Er, no it won't. It doesn't show anything that would do that. Rather like heading this thread 'cat's out of the bag', you are vastly overstating the importance of the emails and blatantly misrepresenting what they contain. They do not show that climate change is not being driven by human activities. jshell wrote: If you ignore links to this revalation, then it's just sitting in the dark and believing in something with blind faith...a bit like religion. That would be true, were it not for the fact that the leaked emails don't show any cover-up of human-induced climate change being a hoax, and for the fact that there is overwhelming data from scientists all around the world that is accepted as fact by 99% of climatologists and meteorologists. These things put it well beyond the realm of faith. You are either too dim to realise that difference, or you are smart enough to but want to miscast it in that light. I wonder which it is. As far back as 1995 scientists advising the Global Climate coalition - a fossil-industries clmamte denial body - said plainly that: "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied". Yet those industries continued to deny climate change was happening, and after that became irrefutable in the public mind they switched to saying well yes, it was happening, but it wasn't human-induced. The continuing job of the climate denier is not to show climate change isn't happening, but to say that there's some doubt as to whether humans are responsible. The scientific consensus level is similar to that saying that there's a link between tobacco and cancer. So having someone misrepresent minor material as proof that the entire realm of scientific evidence may be fraudulent, with links not to any data from scientific bodies but to right-wing denialist blogs, well, you see what that looks like, don't you? jshell wrote: I'll say it again, make up your own mind. And I'll say it again All you have to do is answer four simple questions. 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? Hi Merrick, you seem determined to cast me as a 'Denier'. I've actually been pretty straight about sitting on the fence on this matter. However, it doesn't mean that my 'pendulum' doesn't swing back and forth depending on what I read and hear. I refuse to sit in a 'camp'. Anyway, to answer your questions: 1. Of course it does. 2. That's unproven, and confirmed unproven by the text of some of the messages in the hack/leak. They are having problems proving that CO2 is causing warming as they haven't seen the warming they expected despite increasing CO2. It's there in those texts for all to see. There's also other periods of history where there's been warming without CO2 spikes - that's covered in the texts too. 3. According to a lot of research that has been linked to in the sites talking about the hack/leak, CO2 is not directly linked to rising temps as demonstrated by the CRU info itself. 4. Yes, but the figure quoted is 4% of total global emissions and that appears negligible to me. So, in order for man to decrease global carbon emissions by 1%, we'd have to cut back by a whopping 50% of man's total - gains which could be wiped out overnight by one volcano 'cough'. Think about that number for a minute, 50% of the global industry emissions!!! Stoneage anyone? Anyways, back to the hack/leak. If anyone can put the politics & emotions and entrenched views away for a moment and have a look at this link: http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html Then you'll see that now people are starting to delve into the actual code that's been part of the release. Forget the mails, texts, biching, FOI requests etc, etc. Here are techies at CRU trying to decipher the original code from CRU, on behalf of CRU, saying that the whole thing is bullshit, based on bullshit and calculated using bullshit. Here's on little quote from it: --------------- ""The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0) ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts? OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."" --------------- Again, what the fucking, fuck? I don't want to argue with anyone here, really, but this has serious, serious global implications for each person, country, economy etc, etc. I watched the MP's expenses scandal with increasing anger, I watched the whitewash over Iraq & WMD's with rage. It feels like deja vu. Again, read what's coming out for YOURSELF, decide what to believe in! But, for goodness sakes, read both sides.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Dec 09, 2009, 17:27
Nov 23, 2009, 14:19
|
||
|
jshell wrote: I've actually been pretty straight about sitting on the fence on this matter. No you haven't. As I said before, you have exaggerated the meaning and significance of this stuff, pretending that small things debunk the whole field, equating right-wing denier blogs with real scientists, and applying a false understanding of the science. That is denier stuff. jshell wrote: [Does the atmosphere contain CO2?] 1. Of course it does. Hurrah, we agree. jshell wrote: [does it influence global temperatures?] 2. That's unproven You're simply wrong there. It's provable in a laboratory equipped for children. It is an uncontroversial established fact of atmospheric physics, far pre-dating any widespread ideas about climate change. To say otherwise requires a new and radical theory on global temperatures that doesn't exist yet. If you can come up with one and prove it you have a great career in science ahead of you. jshell wrote: [Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?] They are having problems proving that CO2 is causing warming as they haven't seen the warming they expected despite increasing CO2. You're wrong again. Climate is complex with many factors affecting it, which is why we measure global average temperatures. The 'cooling' and 'decline' that deniers like to talk about are relative to the recent highest temperatures on record, where carbon emissions were augmented by El Nino events. As the Met Office explained: "The evidence is clear – the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. "You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Nino. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Nina. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded." jshell wrote: There's also other periods of history where there's been warming without CO2 spikes That wouldn't disprove CO2 as a greenhouse gas at all! It's like saying leaving chip pans unattended causes house fires, but some house fires have been caused by other things, therefore there's no clear evidence that unattended chip pans are a risk. As it is, ice core records for the last 800,000 years show strong correlation between the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, and the temperature. jshell wrote: CO2 is not directly linked to rising temps Really, your Nobel Prize for Physics awaits you. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The effect of adding more to the atmosphere, well, the clue's in the word 'greenhouse'. jshell wrote: [Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? ] 4. Yes, but the figure quoted is 4% of total global emissions and that appears negligible to me. So, in order for man to decrease global carbon emissions by 1%, we'd have to cut back by a whopping 50% of man's total You misunderstand how it works. The CO2 emitted from natural sources has been balanced by the amount absorbed (largely by plants and oceans). Thus, the amount in the atmosphere remained stable since the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago (between 260 and 280 parts per million). Since the beginning of industrial times 200 years ago we have burned a lot of fossil fuels (emitting CO2) and cut down a lot of forests (preventing emissions being absorbed). Now CO2 is at 387 parts per million - an increase of nearly 40% - and the rate of emission is rising fast. It's like overspending your income by 5 percent a month, and keeping upping it even as your overdraft level decreases. Now imagine your rate of overspend is increasing all the time. What would your bank account look like in 20 years? jshell wrote: gains which could be wiped out overnight by one volcano 'cough'. Once again, you really show a poor understanding of the physics, of probability, and even of elementary arithmetic. Humans *are* adding vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, and doing it constantly. Volcanoes *might* erupt en masse, but presently they account for a fraction of 1 perecent of the amount of CO2 that humans release. The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 - the largest for 1600 years - contributed to a massive global climate event. For a year. Certainly, the eruptions at the end of the Permian period, where temperatures increased by 6 degrees in a short space of time, just as we're on course to do now, was caused by volcanoes. It resulted in the extinction of over 90% of species. That, though, was over 250 million years ago. The likelihood of that sort of thing coming up is not great. I don't think you'll find vulcanologists who'd refer to events of that magnitude as a cough. To return to our analogy, it's like saying your house could be burned down by meteor strike so you might as well leave chip pans turned up on all the hobs. jshell wrote: that the whole thing is bullshit, based on bullshit and calculated using bullshit. You know that overstatement I mentioned? This appears to be scientists disputing one another's methods, on one thing, one time. This is far from saying that the whole thing is bullshit. In 2004 there was a study done of papers in the world's pre-eminent scientific peer-reviewed publication Science. They looked for papers containing the words 'global climate change'. Of the 928 papers, not one disagreed with the consensus position. I stress, these are peer-reviewed. If there were a scientist out there with evidence to the contrary, acclaim and fortune are there for the taking. The study said: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." If you can show me where these Hadley Centre emails actually doubt anthropogenic climate change, or even the broad severity of it, I'll be impressed. If you can show me a single peer-reviewed paper doing the same, I'll be equally impressed. Deniers sound so grand when their names have 'professor' in front, until you find out that they're economists, geologists or astrophysicists. You and I have no expertise in the subject, we are reliant on those who do. Sourcing your information from economists, or from blogs misreading emails and extrapolating to a whole scientific field is not going to guide you to a wise position. So, we not only have climatologists and meteorologists - who, as I said, are in as much agreement as doctors are about tobacco and cancer - but we have scientific bodies like the Royal Society in Britain, and equivalents around the world. Not one of them has questioned climate change, and in their dozens, despite their natural scientific reserve, they issue strongly worded statements in line with the consensus position, contrary to that held by the likes of Melanie Philips or those who believe in made-up physics the way you do.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Nov 23, 2009, 14:27
|
||
That was a well thought out response.
|
|||
drewbhoy 2553 posts |
Nov 23, 2009, 23:32
|
||
I hope that the cat can swim! :-)
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Dec 01, 2009, 23:28
|
||
|
The emails that have been reported on are bad enough, but the details of the software used by CRU are quite shocking. The state of their data is shocking too. One of the leaked documents is a log of one poor sod's attempts to fix a programme to reproduce their own figures (without success) and finding it a complete mess. He spent three years on it & probably aged twenty. It appears they've LOST plenty of data & what they have is so messed up as to be useless. If the source code and log are genuine then the data produced by these guys is not to be trusted & these are the "experts". What has been exposed cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called good science. Heads WILL roll. I've always been agnostic on this, but this leak confirms some of my worst suspicions.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Dec 01, 2009, 23:38
|
||
|
Oh dear. I don't know how good your scientific & programming knowledge is but you seem to have your head in the sand. The leaked code and log of the work done on the software are a disgrace to science and IT. As a student if I'd submitted that I'd have been failed. It is that bad. I truly feel sorry for "Harry" the guy trying to patch up the shambles. No wonder they tried to keep their data and models secret. These are the world experts whose work is being used to justify massive policy changes. It stinks. As I've said before, I'm agnostic on global warming, but these guys are a joke. Looks like some of the disciples have been fatally wounded... who is next? This'll probably be my last word as I've learned the futility of arguing with zealots!!
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Dec 01, 2009, 23:47
|
||
|
Right wing? Lay off the smears. The software is being torn apart by a lot of people. None I've seen appear to have a particular agenda. Most are just gobsmacked at how FUBAR it is. FUBAR pretty much describes how "Harry" felt about it. I'd not be surprised if he was the leaker. If so, he's probablY sleeping better at night now. Don't expect the BBC to be reliable on this. They are so gung-ho on climate change like most of the mainstream media it'll be liking turning a supertanker getting some unbiased coverage.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
