Climategate

[twotoner]

Originally Posted by TheU

Simple. I'm a scientists studying... bird migration. I want money... so I change my study to "the effects of global warming on bird migration", and I get my grant because global warming is a hot button issue.

Or I'm a climate projection scientists. I tweak my model to get outrageous results that make the news. Hello more grant money to keep my ass employed.

Or some scientist trying to do a study on XYZ in relation to global warming.. you name it, you got it.

You nailed it.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Actually TheU said that it is all cyclical and actually we are in a period of global cooling. If he doesn't believes that temperatures haven't gone up in 10 years, how can he believe that human activity isn't part of that non-existent warming?

Well, since 1998, temperatures really haven't gone up. Also, as evidenced by the following quote from one of the hacked emails, scientists on the AGW side of the debate can't explain why:

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Here is a pretty big issue with the AGW side of the debate, and why I've been so argumentative about the use of models and forecasting. Essentially what is being said above is that if the data doesn't fit what was predicted, the data gathering system must be wrong, not the predictive model.

I'm not going to speak on TheU's behalf, but in my opinion human contribution undoubtedly exists, it's the magnitude of it that is in question. Thus, for the last ten years, while emissions have continued to increase, global temperatures have stabilized, perhaps even dropped slightly.

In the Youtube video I posted earlier, John Christy uses the IPCC models and changes the inputs to reflect what would happen various CO2 reduction methods were adopted, all assumptions the built the models were kept constant. Here is a link to his findings: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf. To summarize:

• If the entire world adopted California's emission reduction standards, by 2100 the forecasted temperature rise would only decrease by 0.04C. An amount undetectable to our current instruments.
• If 10% of the world's power were to come from non-emitting sources by 2020, the forecasted temperature rise would decrease by 0.07C by 2050, and 0.15 by 2100. An amount just detectable by our current instrumentation.

Basically, the models say that even by taking extreme measures, the temperature rise will barely be affected.

[driveway]

I'm fairly certain that it doesn't matter whether the temperature is warming or not, attempting to reduce the amount of pollutants that we dump into the atmosphere is not only a good idea from a planetary health viewpoint, but one that will spur economic innovation and development.

I don't really care if ALL the data is faked, I still support carbon reduction programs, cap-and-trade, the Kyoto Accord and most other environmental programs.

Not to mention that Global Warming/Climate change is only ONE of the huge, huge environmental issues we've created (or maybe haven't but whatever). There is no denying the cesspool that is the Central Pacific. The global crash in fish stocks and general biodiversity, the staggering amount of extinction we've caused, deforestation, etc. etc. etc.

If this scandal sets back the environmental movement at all, everyone is going to suffer for it.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by driveway

I'm fairly certain that it doesn't matter whether the temperature is warming or not, attempting to reduce the amount of pollutants that we dump into the atmosphere is not only a good idea from a planetary health viewpoint, but one that will spur economic innovation and development.

I know my arguments in this thread may seem like I'm against all of the initiatives that are related to stopping global harming, however, I actually agree with the above sentiment, to a certain extent. I think that it's very important to reduce our impact on the environment, in all ways possible. I also think that for our own sustainability we need to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. However, I think these things need to be developed carefully and properly, and not rushed because of some (in my opinion) fictional menace. I also think that we need to be realistic about our expectations of technologies such as wind power - wind will not be the solution to all of the world's problems, and I think it's place is being overstated at the present time.

As for the reducing the pollutants we spew into the atmosphere, I definitely agree. However, I would propose that there are much more significant pollutants that we need to reduce before we worry about CO2. In fact, why we call it a pollutant when it's essential for all life on this planet is beyond me.

[TheU]

it's like some people here are just plugging their ears and closing their eyes. still no one has decided to tackle the major problems of man made global warming (taht stopped 10 years ago).

1. Global temp hasn't gone up in 10 years
2. The proven relationship between Co2 and temp is backwards by 25-150 years

Buehler? Buehler?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by TheU

it's like some people here are just plugging their ears and closing their eyes. still no one has decided to tackle the major problems of man made global warming (taht stopped 10 years ago).

1. Global temp hasn't gone up in 10 years
2. The proven relationship between Co2 and temp is backwards by 25-150 years

Buehler? Buehler?

Global Warming is an outdated term. Climate Change does not require warming temperatures.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by driveway

Global Warming is an outdated term. Climate Change does not require warming temperatures.

Well isn't that convenient. It was global warming until the planet stopped warming, now its just climate change. Wonderful science.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by TheU

1. Global temp hasn't gone up in 10 years

You are right that the global temperature hasn't gone up vs 1998. However, that's like watching Detroit score 8 goals vs Atlanta and then score only 6 goals in each of their next 4 games and saying that "their offense has cooled off considerably from the Atlanta game".

[driveway]

Well, when climactic variation is observed but not characterized but an increase in temperatures, then a term like "global warming" is clearly no longer accurate to describe what's going on and a new term should be developed.

[TheU]

yeah, i am right, the global temp hasn't gone up in 10 years. thanks for coming out. and in fact, there are predictions that it will begin cooling. then what? what the excuse then?

also, the earth has been hotter before than it is today, and for a lot longer. how on earth did everything not get destroyed back then? omgz!

[TheU]

Originally Posted by driveway

Well, when climactic variation is observed but not characterized but an increase in temperatures, then a term like "global warming" is clearly no longer accurate to describe what's going on and a new term should be developed.

it was global warming hysteria for a while in the 90's when we could see the earths temp was going up. global warming scientists back then predicted how much hotter it would get in the 2000's and how we were on a path to destruction.

then the warming stopped, with an extended cooling around the cooler. how do you save a newly formed industry worth billions in research grants and investment? change the name to climate change. sexy.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by TheU

yeah, i am right, the global temp hasn't gone up in 10 years. thanks for coming out.

If that is your interpretation of that graph, I hope you don't interpret data for a living.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If that is your interpretation of that graph, I hope you don't interpret data for a living.

the earth is 4 and a half billion years old and you want to go by 1000 years of data that has been called into question for its legitimacy? sounds like you can be a climate scientologist.

[driveway]

Okay, TheU, I think you're confused about something. The issue is not that the climate is changing. You're right - the earth is 4 billion years old and the climate has varied hugely in that time.

The issue is the rate at which the climate is changing. In the past, increases and decreases of temperature would take place over thousands of years. More than enough time for the biosphere to adjust, migrations to occur, evolution to work its magic, etc.

Now we're talking about exactly the same kind of temperature fluctuations occurring in the span of decades. Now, it's possible that these kinds of rapid fluctuations have happened in the past, but as far as I know there isn't much or any evidence to support that.

So that's the problem - not that we are changing the climate, because you're right the earth will survive, - but how fast we're changing the climate.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by TheU

the earth is 4 and a half billion years old and you want to go by 1000 years of data that has been called into question for its legitimacy? sounds like you can be a climate scientologist.

Except that you are using the same data to try and disprove people who believe the average temperatures globally are going up.

What's your point?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

yeah, i am right, the global temp hasn't gone up in 10 years. thanks for coming out. and in fact, there are predictions that it will begin cooling. then what? what the excuse then?

also, the earth has been hotter before than it is today, and for a lot longer. how on earth did everything not get destroyed back then? omgz!

I suppose whats happening in the arctic is a normal pattern. The north atlantic water that flows into the arctic has risen 3.5 degree F in the last 10 years. the whole eco system is changing before our eyes.

Is Greenland's massive ice sheet supposed to melt 10 fold in the last 5 years? for the first time in recorded history scientists have found subtropical water underneath that ice. 5 years ago scientists predicted Greenlands melting would raise the ocean 20 inches in 1000 years, this May that prediction went from 1000 years to less then 100 years. Maybe by this May it'll be 10 years.

Since your in the know about air temps, how about give us a breakdown on global temperatures. For instance theres a country in Africa that the average temperature actually 4 degrees cooler now than 30 years ago, they blame it on the demise of Lake Chad(once a top 10 largest lake in the world..now a pond), other countrys in Africa are starting a cooling trend due to lakes shrinking, Lake Victoria has lost 5 feet of water in 4 years.

When I was kid where I grew up we had snow on the ground for 3-4 months a year,almost never left, nowdays it's getting close for the need of a lawnmover.

Maybe it's a global "shift" in temperatures? either way it's very bad.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by TheU

the earth is 4 and a half billion years old and you want to go by 1000 years of data that has been called into question for its legitimacy? sounds like you can be a climate scientologist.

I am curious TheU, what do you do for a living?

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by T@T

I suppose whats happening in the arctic is a normal pattern. The north atlantic water that flows into the arctic has risen 3.5 degree F in the last 10 years. the whole eco system is changing before our eyes.

Is Greenland's massive ice sheet supposed to melt 10 fold in the last 5 years? for the first time in recorded history scientists have found subtropical water underneath that ice. 5 years ago scientists predicted Greenlands melting would raise the ocean 20 inches in 1000 years, this May that prediction went from 1000 years to less then 100 years. Maybe by this May it'll be 10 years.

Since your in the know about air temps, how about give us a breakdown on global temperatures. For instance theres a country in Africa that the average temperature actually 4 degrees cooler now than 30 years ago, they blame it on the demise of Lake Chad(once a top 10 largest lake in the world..now a pond), other countrys in Africa are starting a cooling trend due to lakes shrinking, Lake Victoria has lost 5 feet of water in 4 years.

When I was kid where I grew up we had snow on the ground for 3-4 months a year,almost never left, nowdays it's getting close for the need of a lawnmover.

Maybe it's a global "shift" in temperatures? either way it's very bad.

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.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

I am curious TheU, what do you do for a living?

He works for Telus, and still lives with his parents, from what I've gleaned from his posts in the tech subforum

[TheU]

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