And again I just want to point out that we aren't denying the fact that the earth naturally heats and cools in cycles, what we are saying is that the rate at which it has heated up in the past decade is alarming.
What we are also saying is that the changes made to this climate could affect its natural cycles. There will be places in the world that will actually cool because of climate change, there will be places that do not show a temp change at all. Then there will be the prairies that actually see an INCREASE in precip as a result of this warming. But it doesn't change the fact that the climate has been changed, and the whole point of the Copenhagen conference is just to make sure that we don't pass the 2 C mark. The worst case scenario run by the ICPP is a 4 C change, thats with zero intervention, best case is a 2 C change.
Various climate models have been run for the past 100 years using recorded CO2 emissions and have been almost 100% accurate (100% in science is a very rare thing). Meaning that with the CO2 added in, it has matched our trend. Without the CO2, it hasn't.
GCM are very expensive, most countries only have one, except the States they have numerous models.
I am kind of curious, does anyone in this thread work in the Climate Change research field?
I look at this hacking as more of an act of desperation from the anti CC crowd. They are losing the argument, so they start attacking the data. If anything it is a compliment that we are doing our job right and need to just continue down this path.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Last edited by GreenLantern; 11-27-2009 at 11:31 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern For This Useful Post:
Science is not: Conclusion > data > data doesn't fit try again > data > data doesn't fit try again
Science is Observe > postulate a theory > test > does it match the data? if no, try a new theory
If science can show with peer reviewed observations that our co2 is driving climate change, and not the sun and clouds, then I'll be happy to do my part and encourage legistlation that will crippled the economy but at least save the Earth for our future generations. This data, however, doesn't exist. The hacked CRU emails and the hockey stick graph show climate change zealots are bypassing the peer review process for their own personal gain, and to ensure their cushy lifestyles funded by government grants.
I find it hilarious that someone who likely does not have significant scientific training is lecturing us on the nature of science, supporting garbage that can't produce a single decent piece of peer-reviewed primary literature. Where exactly did you do your PhD?
Peer-reviewed literature supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate change is common. Go to a science library and sift through the Science and Nature articles from the last year and you can read these sorts of papers until your eyes cross. Post actual peer reviewed PRIMARY literature supporting your argument, not links to blogs, or news stories, or more secondary review hack jobs. I dare you.
It is one case, in a field of thousands of scientists, and you are arguing that it invalidates an entire field of work. Absolutely absurd.
The whole notion of you arguing this on the basis of what you read on a bunch of blogs is a joke. When your grandmother goes in to the hospital to get her hip replaced, do you argue with the surgeon, saying that's not the way you read it should be done on a blog? That's what you're advocating.
And finally, the whole personal gain/cushy lifestyle notion you have is hilarious. Grant money, especially in the UK, does not prop up academic salaries. Academics in science are generally underpaid and overworked given their talents and years of training. If they wanted money, they are more than smart enough, with valuable skills, to pursue a career in industry or other avenues. Academics choose to stay in pure science, more often than not, because they genuinely love science, and they hope to contribute to society by providing some insight as to how the physical world works. Find an academic in cutting edge science and ask him or her if they are in it for the cushy lifestyle. If they don't slug you first, they will laugh themselves to tears.
Last edited by Billy Tallent; 11-27-2009 at 02:39 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Billy Tallent For This Useful Post:
One could say this has produced a heated debate! Ha... couldn't resist .
An interesting discussion to read.. currently in an environmental economics class and this tidbit of news certainly sheds some light on the situation. I think I'll continue to take a back seat in this thread, however.
__________________
''The Phaneuf - Regehr pairing reminds me a lot of when I'm having sex with a new partner'' -malcomk14
''Not only is he a good player, but I enjoy his company'' -Pierre Mcguire on Phaneuf
"I'm only watching now for the chance to see brief close-ups of White's moustache." - rockstar</br>
Below is the opening, the article linked above backs up every thing said below with specific examples.
" Here is a small sample of the underlying political agenda: Billions in new taxes, International regulatory control under the UN, Goldman Sachs/CCX carbon trading, Obliteration of national sovereignty, extreme forced austerity and reduction of the standard of living, deindustrialization of the First World countries, and implementation of Orwellian state policies for the purposes of "carbon tracking". The science does not matter -- the politics does."
"A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda. The degree of collusion between big media, the UN, and corrupted scientists involved in frank criminal activity is deeply disturbing. As I have detailed before, the purpose here is a political one. Global warming, or now abstractly identified as 'climate change', has been chosen by international banks and think tanks as the method of induction of vast political and social engineering never before seen in the history of the world."
Below is the opening, the article linked above backs up every thing said below with specific examples.
" Here is a small sample of the underlying political agenda: Billions in new taxes, International regulatory control under the UN, Goldman Sachs/CCX carbon trading, Obliteration of national sovereignty, extreme forced austerity and reduction of the standard of living, deindustrialization of the First World countries, and implementation of Orwellian state policies for the purposes of "carbon tracking". The science does not matter -- the politics does."
"A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda. The degree of collusion between big media, the UN, and corrupted scientists involved in frank criminal activity is deeply disturbing. As I have detailed before, the purpose here is a political one. Global warming, or now abstractly identified as 'climate change', has been chosen by international banks and think tanks as the method of induction of vast political and social engineering never before seen in the history of the world."
There is not a single piece of actual science in that link. Not one. No peer-reviewed primary literature.
Baloney the science doesn't matter. You're talking about an issue that centers on science. If so much of it is corrupt and faulty, there will be plenty of peer-reviewed primary literature proving your case. Find it.
If you genuinely beleive that the global scientific community has engineered a 99% consensus as part of vast international left-wing conspiracy, then there is no hope.
And not to take things off track but more the reason why I think the WWF is the biggest waste of space and money.
Maybe true. They have one thing in their favour though (taking it even further off topic). They are one of the very few groups sticking up for the poorer nations in Copenhagen. There is a belief amongst the delegates from the poorer nations like the Island states and the G77 that the US, EU, and other rich western nations will use Copenhagen to screw them over yet again. Copenhagen is running on a highly compressed time-scale, and the EU and US have armies of hundred of negotiators working full-time, preparing months in advance. Meanwhile, G77 delegates are very few in number (I believe they only have three full-time negotiators), most can only show up a few days in advance, and often aren't even fluent enough in english, which is the language of the negotiations, to easily participate. The deck is stacked against them. The WWF has a team of about 50 representatives which do try to help some of these people. They serve a purpose I guess.
Anyone who thinks this issue isn't politicized is kidding themselves However, just because an issue has become politicized doesn't mean it isn't true.
My biggest problem is that a lot of these programs are simply wealth transfers that don't really do anything to combat climate change.
I also think that the answer is sustainable growth, you can't keep developing at an incredible rate and think there will be no consequences. Conversely, you can't just turf the world's economy.
I also think that the answer is sustainable growth, you can't keep developing at an incredible rate and think there will be no consequences. Conversely, you can't just turf the world's economy.
I love the word "sustainable". Throw it into a sentence and everything is hunkey dorey. Bethcha it's the most common word over 10 letters in annual reports.
Curious ... define your "interpretation" of it.
I'll go back to my definition of unsustainable.
In the next 20 years India will have huge food shortage issues (famine) due to a collapse of their water table as a result of unsustainable use.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Anyone who thinks this issue isn't politicized is kidding themselves However, just because an issue has become politicized doesn't mean it isn't true.
My biggest problem is that a lot of these programs are simply wealth transfers that don't really do anything to combat climate change.
I also think that the answer is sustainable growth, you can't keep developing at an incredible rate and think there will be no consequences. Conversely, you can't just turf the world's economy.
I know it's politicized. If it was purely up to science, this would have been dealt with at least a decade ago. It's the politics that screws the whole thing up. And the politics become a feed-forward loop. It drags everything out, the situation gets worse, then it gets more expensive to deal with, so it gets more political, etc., etc., etc....
It is a wealth transfer. Get over it. It is a wealth transfer because WE, the west have already developed a historical debt in terms of carbon emissions. This is about social justice. We, over the course of our development, have already emitted our share of emissions, when compared to the bulk of the global population in the poorer countries. If Copenhagen was going to be truly fair, we would have to stop emitting, period. Cold turkey. Tomorrow.
Obviously we can't do that, so instead, we ought to bear the financial burden. Poor countries in the G77 can't afford to deal with the damage we have wrought. We have a moral obligation to help them mitigate the effects of OUR prosperity, not theirs. They will suffer so you can eat cheap beef and drive a Dodge Ram.
We can afford to develop renewable energy technology, they can't. There are still people going sick and hungry in those countries, in the west, there aren't. We can afford to pay for their relocation and engineering projects and water management projects. They can't.
This is the problem. The average North American cannot fathom what life is like for the world's poor that make up the bulk of the population. They talk about sustainability, but they certainly don't mean sustainability for some poor sucker in the low-lying coastal regions of south-east Asia or arid Africa.
And oh yes, the economy argument. Are you familiar with the Stern report? If you were, you would know that Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist for the World Bank, was commisioned by the UK government to examine the global economic impact of climate change. Simply, he concluded that it will cost less to deal with it now, aggressively, than it will to delay. While much of it is a secondary synthesis, it is still thorough and well thought out, with extensive references if you want further detail.
And again I just want to point out that we aren't denying the fact that the earth naturally heats and cools in cycles, what we are saying is that the rate at which it has heated up in the past decade is alarming.
What we are also saying is that the changes made to this climate could affect its natural cycles. There will be places in the world that will actually cool because of climate change, there will be places that do not show a temp change at all. Then there will be the prairies that actually see an INCREASE in precip as a result of this warming. But it doesn't change the fact that the climate has been changed, and the whole point of the Copenhagen conference is just to make sure that we don't pass the 2 C mark. The worst case scenario run by the ICPP is a 4 C change, thats with zero intervention, best case is a 2 C change.
2c more would probably still cause major grief, 4c would be a major disaster.
I posted this in another thread but it went unnoticed.
Quote:
Interesting looking at the last 5 Novembers.
2005 - AH (6.1c) AL (-5.5c) ADT (-0.4c)
2006 - AH (-0.9c) AL (-4.8c) ADT (-6.3c)
2007 - AH (4.7c) AL (-7.9c) ADT (-1.6c)
2008 - AH (7.1c) AL (-2.8c) ADT (2.2c)
2008 - AH (9.1c) AL (-4.3c) ADT (2.4c)
AH = Average high
AL = Average Low
ADT = Average Daily Temperature
Looking farther back when they started keeping records.
From years 1893 to 2005 Calgary's temperatures in Nov were: AH (2.8c) AL (-8.9c) ADT (-3.1c)
In that time there has been 14 years in the plus side for ADT.
8/14 came since 1980, 4 of those came in the 2000,s. 2002 was the warmest at (2.7c) If you take away that one crazy cold November of 2006, Calgary has warmed almost 4c in the last decade for November.
I might try and find some time and do the data for every month, especially the winter months
There is not a single piece of actual science in that link. Not one. No peer-reviewed primary literature.
Baloney the science doesn't matter. You're talking about an issue that centers on science. If so much of it is corrupt and faulty, there will be plenty of peer-reviewed primary literature proving your case. Find it.
If you genuinely beleive that the global scientific community has engineered a 99% consensus as part of vast international left-wing conspiracy, then there is no hope.
There's just evidence in that article of gov'ts acting on faulty science. If anything, its a vast international right wing conspiracy. Business is going to get you and me to pay a carbon tax at the pump and every time we turn on a light. Goldman Sachs will be the house that skims a bit of every carbon trade and we'll all get GPS for our cars so we can put a meter on that too.
And if you had been paying attention Billy, you'd understand why there isn't very much peer reviewed primary literature in this area of science:
- From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. 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 to anyone."
- From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003
"I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review -- Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting."
- From: Michael E. Mann, Mar 11, 2003
"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
- From: Tom Wigley, Apr24, 2003
"Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc."
2c more would probably still cause major grief, 4c would be a major disaster.
I posted this in another thread but it went unnoticed.
I might try and find some time and do the data for every month, especially the winter months
Yes, but 2 degrees in the gobal climate and 2 degrees in the local climate are two totally different things.
Think of it this way, the prairies are based in a continental climate. Continental climates, due to their central location, have a large variability in weather. So we can expect a change of 2 degrees Celsius globally, to be multiplied drastically for us. Basically any change that happens to the world is always multiplied for a continental, variable, climate.
Some Scientists in the states think that Canada will actually benefit from climate change due to the increased growing season. This is false. A recent study by the IACC shows that while we will see an increase in growing season due to rising temperatures, it will be off set by INCREASED precipitation. What the hell, how is that even possible? We will see an increase of rainfall in the winter months, not snow. Meaning that runoff will be very limited in the spring. Also, in the summers, we will see our rain come in more intense rainfall bursts which will result in less overall days with rain.
So in theory, an increase in rainfall will actually hurt the prairies. 1999-2005 drought cost us $5.6 billion of the GDP. What happens when another multi year drought hits and we have increased growing seasons coupled with less available precipitation? You can bet, just like the variability of the climate sees any changes get multiplied in the prairies, so will that number.
Here is a link to PARC's website (IACC), they compared the South Saskatchewan River Basin to parts of Chile to see what we can expect with a changing climate in the future.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern For This Useful Post:
But now that colossal spending and regulating programs impend on these issues, I must say that the Al Gore-David Suzuki conventional-wisdom hysteria is an insane scam.
There's just evidence in that article of gov'ts acting on faulty science. If anything, its a vast international right wing conspiracy. Business is going to get you and me to pay a carbon tax at the pump and every time we turn on a light. Goldman Sachs will be the house that skims a bit of every carbon trade and we'll all get GPS for our cars so we can put a meter on that too.
And if you had been paying attention Billy, you'd understand why there isn't very much peer reviewed primary literature in this area of science:
It's pretty clear you don't even know what science is. When I say science, I mean primary peer-reviewed literature. The scientific world, no matter what it's discipline, publishes most data via this means, not CNN or the Times.
I know exactly why there isn't any of it in the peer-review system. I know how the peer-review system works, because I've been on both sides of the equation. There haven't been any legitimate primary denial papers published in a peer-reviewed journal in over a decade because the science doesn't withstand review. Papers are usually not rejected out of hand, no matter what you may think. One bad review is not enough to stop publication. Manuscripts go out to multiple, anonymous reviewers. The author(s) can usually ask to either include or exclude potential reviewers for consideration, especially if they feel there is a conflict of interest, and after review, they can always edit the manuscript or add experiments/studies/analysis/data. Even if the manuscript is rejected, it can always be resubmitted to the same or other journals pending changes.
I can't even find a Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences. There's a Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, an American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, and an American Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. And none of these are high-impact journals. Even the oft discussed Climate Research only managed an IF of 1 in 2002 (just before the e-mail in question). An impact factor that low suggests it is already borderline as a legitmate journal, even in the earth sciences. Kind of makes the point, no? Anyhow, your e-mail names a fictional journal. That kind of casts a little doubt on the legitimacy of the e-mail doesn't it?
As far as the rest of the e-mails you've posted, they've been heavily edited, and could be interpreted multiple ways in an academic context. As they stand, they're not terribly meaningful. I can't see the rest of the e-mails, because they are so highly edited, I can't see the manuscript in question, I can't see the study it critiques, and I can't see the reviews in question. And at risk of repeating myself, this is still just one group in a field of thousands, even if something is wrong.
Man I feel like such a fool. This climate change thing is such an amazing business idea and I totally missed the boat on it. You don't even need real science to create a mass hysteria, just some doomsday predictions and people buy every penny of it.
I mean really, in the grand scheme of things we don't know a damn thing about how the climate works, what the climate SHOULD be or what effect if any we have on it. Half the time we can't even figure out what the weather will be like tomorrow! Yet here we are talking about potentially spending trillions on some assumptions and best guesses from our scientific community(and maybe some outright lies!).
The amount of blind faith in the scientific community really is amusing to me, especially on a topic so grand and vast that we cannot even begin to comprehend even the basic ideas behind our climate and how it works.
I mean are people really so stupid that they actually think this is about saving the planet? I hate to break it to you if you do, but this is about 1 thing. Greed. This is alllll about the money, and if you honestly think anything good will come for the environment out of this I think you are just being ignorant to the situation(or don't understand how carbon taxes work...).
I'm willing to bet in 200 years the whole idea of climate change will be mocked by students the same way the idea of a flat earth is mocked by our children today. They will ask teachers how we could be so silly back then! Yet both ideas were supported by some of the best minds of their time so how could they be wrong!
Anyways before you reply about how we should back climate change just in case(ignoring the fact that it's about money obviously), make sure you are on a solid piece of land....I wouldn't want you to fall off the earth!
The Following User Says Thank You to flamesftw For This Useful Post:
. 
