Climategate

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by TheU

I didn't realize I had to be a professor or scientist to to form an opinion, my apologies

I would say you are entitled to your opinions, and its certainly a topic that has its fair share, but calling people sheep and lemmings because they don't agree with you does nothing to sway anyone's. This is particularly true in this case, where the science and numbers it is generating, along with observable evidence of climate change, are still very much open to interpretation and debate as an emerging area of scientific endeavor.

[TheU]

i dont reserve the lemmings comments to people here, that goes for the majority of people who dont stay informed about anything. go ahead and ask 20 random people you find on the streets or at your job or at school if the global average temperature has gone up in the last 10 years. im willing to bet 90%+ will all say the temp has gone up. global warming and climate change have occurred, but the idea that man made co2 has raised temperature due to greenhouse gases being increased can't be true if we cotninue to add more co2 every year to the environment yet the temp has now stopped going up and will infact soon be going down. its a rational statement and theres no rebuttal to it yet. so what do climatologists do when the data doesn't match the theory? they try and prove the theory other ways by twisting projections. that's not science.

theory of man made global warming, taken directly from inconvenient truth
1. Man puts Co2 into atmoshpere
2. Co2, a greenhouse gas, traps more sunlight and warms the Earth (infrared radiation to be specific)
3. Global warming occurs

the reality
1. Man is putting more and more co2 every year into the atomspehre
2. Global warming started before the industrial boom
3. Global warming stopped in the late 90's
4. Historically speaking, and this is from Al Gores own movie, co 2 goes up AFTER the average temperature goes up. by 25-150 years... this isn't a claim im making its fact

Man made global warming cannot be true

[T@T]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Another example in Africa is that Mt. Kilimanjaro is predicted to have no glaciation atop its peaks in another 20 years or less.

The issue, as others have begun to point out, is that small changes or influences in climate have big consequences because of the feedback loops that exist. In the Mt. Kilimanjaro example, as the glacier begins to lose surface area, more ground is exposed to solar radiation, raising ground temperatures, which leads to even more rapid glacier retreat, exposing more ground again.

Yes and in the end everything around there becomes a desert, a lot hotter during the day,a lot cooler during the night but yet the anti-global warming people will just measure the 24 hour cycle and claim the temperature is the same.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yes and in the end everything around there becomes a desert, a lot hotter during the day,a lot cooler during the night but yet the anti-global warming people will just measure the 24 hour cycle and claim the temperature is the same.

the melting in Kilimanjaro and cause of it is still un explained, and in fact may be due to the lack of moisture in the area.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

and will infact soon be going down. its a rational statement and theres no rebuttal to it yet.

woohoo we've got a real live climatologist online. Opinion is now fact.

Q.Care to share your data?
A. Sure. It's been going down for the last 10 years therefore it'll go down for ever.
Q. What about the hundreds of year before that?
A. What about them?
Q.Don't they count when considering a trend in the grand scheme of things?
A. Errrmmmm ...... No.
Q. What about rate of change?
A.What about it?
Q.Well the speed of warming?
A.What's that got to do with anything?
Q.Aren't you concerned about that.
A.The earth has cooled in the last 10 years therefore ....
Q.Yeah, but what about the overall trend?
A.Godddammmmm it!!!! Stop asking me about that.

[TheU]

This article is for those who say the scientific community has some how come to a consensus

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index...s?id=161560864
’I believe this whole human-induced climate change issue is a huge fraud and really a non-issue,’ says UWI lecturer Reynold Stone.
Dr Stone, a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Science and Agriculture, is not some lone kook. There are leading scientists around the world insisting that many of the common beliefs about climate change and its effects are media-fuelled hype, abetted by scientists and politicians

Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, one of the leading spokesmen about global warming, admits, ’We have to get some broad base support. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we might have.’ But money and status are also factors: climate scientist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says, ’Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse.’

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

the melting in Kilimanjaro and cause of it is still un explained, and in fact may be due to the lack of moisture in the area.

And why is there less moisture in the area? could it be because humans are causing the lakes to dry up?
Every glacier on the planet is melting at an alarming rate, after being there for 10,000 years and barely changing why are they just now (20 years or so) melting off so fast?

You haven't responded to the rising temperatures of the oceans, the major problems it's causing in the Arctic and Greenland.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

4. Historically speaking, and this is from Al Gores own movie, co 2 goes up AFTER the average temperature goes up. by 25-150 years... this isn't a claim im making its fact

You haven't a clue what you're talking about when you bring up this silly little statement.

Of course it goes up. Every man and his dog knows that. You however seem to think it's something that was discovered yesterday when you're about 10 years behind the rest of the planet.

Let me give you a simple example of why this has been common knowledge to the world's populations sans you since the dawn of time.

Temperature gets warmer. Permafrost melts. GGs trapped underneath the permafrost are released. Temperature gets warmer ... CO2 trapped in the deep ocean is released.

It's nothing new or remarkable. I appreciate you getting excited but sorry to tell you you're about 10 years behind. Hey, at least you're catching up.

Try and think in the context of amplification of change and feedback loops.
Actually ... don't bother. Continue as you were, it's entertaining.

Let me be as silly as you. Tomorrow in Ottawa it is forecasted to be 8 degrees. Historical data shows that on the same day last year it was a max temperature of -3.7 degrees.

This shows clearly and without doubt and is a f-a-c-t that the planet is warming at an alarming rate of 11.7 degrees a year.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Bagor

woohoo we've got a real live climatologist online. Opinion is now fact.

Q.Care to share your data?
A. Sure. It's been going down for the last 10 years therefore it'll go down for ever.
Q. What about the hundreds of year before that?
A. What about them?
Q.Don't they count when considering a trend in the grand scheme of things?
A. Errrmmmm ...... No.
Q. What about rate of change?
A.What about it?
Q.Well the speed of warming?
A.What's that got to do with anything?
Q.Aren't you concerned about that.
A.The earth has cooled in the last 10 years therefore ....
Q.Yeah, but what about the overall trend?
A.Godddammmmm it!!!! Stop asking me about that.

I agree that it is premature to forecast Global Cooling, especially since I've already made my point about forecasting numerous times. However, I guess I'd like to know how using a 10 year cooling period to disprove the recent warming trend is any different than using the recent warming to reach the conclusions that are being expounded by the AGW side.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

This article is for those who say the scientific community has some how come to a consensus

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index...s?id=161560864
’I believe this whole human-induced climate change issue is a huge fraud and really a non-issue,’ says UWI lecturer Reynold Stone.
Dr Stone, a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Science and Agriculture, is not some lone kook. There are leading scientists around the world insisting that many of the common beliefs about climate change and its effects are media-fuelled hype, abetted by scientists and politicians

Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider, one of the leading spokesmen about global warming, admits, ’We have to get some broad base support. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we might have.’ But money and status are also factors: climate scientist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says, ’Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse.’

Because some engineer from Trinidad doesn't believe it, it must be true.

For every one scentist who doesn't believe it there is fifty that do.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You haven't a clue what you're talking about when you bring up this silly little statement.

Of course it goes up. Every man and his dog knows that. You however seem to think it's something that was discovered yesterday when you're about 10 years behind the rest of the planet.

Let me give you a simple example of why this has been common knowledge to the world's populations sans you since the dawn of time.

Temperature gets warmer. Permafrost melts. GGs trapped underneath the permafrost are released. Temperature gets warmer ... CO2 trapped in the deep ocean is released.

It's nothing new or remarkable. I appreciate you getting excited but sorry to tell you you're about 10 years behind. Hey, at least you're catching up.

Try and think in the context of amplification of change and feedback loops.
Actually ... don't bother. Continue as you were, it's entertaining.

Let me be as silly as you. Tomorrow in Ottawa it is forecasted to be 8 degrees. Historical data shows that on the same day last year it was a max temperature of -3.7 degrees.

This shows clearly and without doubt and is a f-a-c-t that the planet is warming at an alarming rate of 11.7 degrees a year.

Well, now we're getting into a chicken and egg type of scenario, and opening up a whole new set of questions. CO2 and temperature are both higher than historical averages right now, there's our current data that we can stand pretty firmly upon. But, did we get here because CO2 drove temperature, or because temperature drove CO2? If CO2 drove temperature, what was the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration? Was it increased human activity, or were there other natural events at play (say, for argument's sake, an increased level of volcanic activity)? Or perhaps some combination of both? If both, how much can be properly attributed to human activity? Or, if there was an initial temperature increase that kicked off the increase of CO2, how much of the current increase in CO2 concentration came from the fact that temperatures were increasing?

Now, the AGW side of the debate seems to go something like this: CO2 and temperature are both higher than normal. CO2 is known to trap heat via the greenhouse effect. Humans have been emitting CO2 at an increasing rate. Conclusion: humans are responsible for the increase in temperature.

We're told that this conclusion is supported by models that have factored out natural effects to show conclusively that human activity is largely responsible for the increase. However, to get back to the initial point of this thread - the released emails, this was done without much peer review, except by those within the AGW camp.

[Ashartus]

Personally I'll leave the debate about how much humans are influencing climate to the climatologists - I've taken courses in atmospheric science but it's definitely not my specialty. I do think any comparison that starts with "since 1998" is a bit questionable though, since that year is a fairly significant outlier due to a strong El Nino.

I think both sides of the debate tend to miss a fairly important question, however: what is the ideal climate? If we'd be in a cooling trend without anthropogenic contributions, I'm not sure that would necessarily be a good thing. Maybe we should be working towards figuring out what the optimum climate is (i.e. allows the best use of the largest amount of available land). I doubt if the science is anywhere close to being able to tell us the amount of greenhouse gasses we should emit to achieve that climate, but at least it might tell us what direction we need to be going.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by T@T

For every one scentist who doesn't believe it there is fifty that do.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx

This is a link to a petition that has been signed by 32,000 people, questioning the validity of AGW. Of those 32,000, 9000 have PhDs, considerably more than the 2500 that "sign" the IPCC reports. Signed is in quotes because those 2500 sign nothing; they are a list of people who have reviewed the reports. Furthermore, their comments may or may not be included into the final version, however, they did review it, so their names are on the list.

Now, before you post your arguments about phony names, let me get in front of that one. There has been one proven instance of a fake signature, Spice Girl Geri Halliwell. Other names that appear to be fake turned out to be properly credentialled scientists, including Micheal Fox and Perry Mason. The instance of the fake name has been attributed to Greenpeace in an attempt to discredit the petition.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by puckhog

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx

This is a link to a petition that has been signed by 32,000 people, questioning the validity of AGW. Of those 32,000, 9000 have PhDs, considerably more than the 2500 that "sign" the IPCC reports. Signed is in quotes because those 2500 sign nothing; they are a list of people who have reviewed the reports. Furthermore, their comments may or may not be included into the final version, however, they did review it, so their names are on the list.

Now, before you post your arguments about phony names, let me get in front of that one. There has been one proven instance of a fake signature, Spice Girl Geri Halliwell. Other names that appear to be fake turned out to be properly credentialled scientists, including Micheal Fox and Perry Mason. The instance of the fake name has been attributed to Greenpeace in an attempt to discredit the petition.

I just signed this one...look for my name amoung the 31,000 scientists

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[mikey_the_redneck]

I also believe global warming to be a scam.....

It is all about imposing carbon taxes on us and a cap and trade system that makes Al Gore and all his corporate/political buddies a boatload of money.

Hell, even the guy who started the Weather Network is against the idea of global warming, but what does he know.....

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Bagor

You haven't a clue what you're talking about when you bring up this silly little statement.

Of course it goes up. Every man and his dog knows that. You however seem to think it's something that was discovered yesterday when you're about 10 years behind the rest of the planet.

Let me give you a simple example of why this has been common knowledge to the world's populations sans you since the dawn of time.

Temperature gets warmer. Permafrost melts. GGs trapped underneath the permafrost are released. Temperature gets warmer ... CO2 trapped in the deep ocean is released.

It's nothing new or remarkable. I appreciate you getting excited but sorry to tell you you're about 10 years behind. Hey, at least you're catching up.

Try and think in the context of amplification of change and feedback loops.
Actually ... don't bother. Continue as you were, it's entertaining.

Let me be as silly as you. Tomorrow in Ottawa it is forecasted to be 8 degrees. Historical data shows that on the same day last year it was a max temperature of -3.7 degrees.

This shows clearly and without doubt and is a f-a-c-t that the planet is warming at an alarming rate of 11.7 degrees a year.

lol. you're funny

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by T@T

Every glacier on the planet is melting at an alarming rate,.

I'm not weighing in on either side of this issue as sitting on the sidelines and watching is much more fun, but you do need to research more on this T@T. While as a whole the amount of ice in glaciers is declining, on a individual level, there are indeed glaciers which are actually increasing in size while others decrease.

And let's remember only 18,000 years ago almost the entirety of Canada was cover in ice. That's alot of ice that melted in a pretty short period of time.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by T@T

I just signed this one...look for my name amoung the 31,000 scientists

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

All you did was a piece of paper and put it in an envelope. That doesn't mean your name will show up among the signatories. In fact, keep me posted on that, I'd be curious about how effective their screening process is.

In any case, you still don't address the point that there is a pretty sizable contingency of qualified scientists who don't support the AGW theory. Why is the AGW side so unwilling to accept that there might be some valid scientific criticism of their viewpoint?

Also, not one person arguing in favor of the AGW theory in this thread has addressed the released emails, which was the original point of this tread. If confirmed to be legitimate, they indicate some pretty shady behaviour on the part of some prominent climate scientists.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by puckhog

In any case, you still don't address the point that there is a pretty sizable contingency of qualified scientists who don't support the AGW theory. Why is the AGW side so unwilling to accept that there might be some valid scientific criticism of their viewpoint?

There is a pretty sizable contingency of scientists who don't support evolution. I give them the same credence as those that signed that silly online petition.

The reason the AGW side is upset with the anti-AGW side is because any kind of doubt leads to the political paralysis that we've had in the last 20 years. The scientists that believe that global warming is real, is man-made, and will have dire consequences would want something done to avoid those consequences.

For the 50% of people who believe the global warning science, they need scientific consensus to get any kind of movement from our political leaders.

For the 50% of people who do not believe the global warming science, all they need is a few crackpots and you win. The political paralysis of the last 20 years proves that so long as there is any inkling of doubt, the politicians that drive policy will do nothing about the problem.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I'm not weighing in on either side of this issue as sitting on the sidelines and watching is much more fun, but you do need to research more on this T@T. While as a whole the amount of ice in glaciers is declining, on a individual level, there are indeed glaciers which are actually increasing in size while others decrease.

And the reason for these "small amount" glaciers to grow are they are being fed by the melting snow from the surrounding mountains,lets see the growth when the snow is gone like on Mount Hood,Oregon.

These 2 pics were both taken on the same day late summer 17 years apart. And I'm told there is very little snow left at all these days.



research can be your friend as well.

And let's remember only 18,000 years ago almost the entirety of Canada was cover in ice. That's alot of ice that melted in a pretty short period of time.

But yet if you see pictures of glaciers from 100 years ago and again 20 years ago there's very little differences but in the last 20 years the difference is huge.

A big one in Argentina is disappearing at a rate of 800 feet a year,yet before 1980 nobody even noticed it changing at all.