Climategate

[Pastiche]

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

That would be funny if Copenhagen had something to do with even one thing on that list. Sadly, however, it didn't.



Edit: Actually, it still wouldn't be funny.

[automaton 3]

Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Waterloo has an interesting new paper out:

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

[troutman]

Are you with me Doctor Lu
Are you really just a shadow
Of the man that I once knew
Are you crazy are you high
Or just an ordinary guy
Have you done all you can do

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Waterloo has an interesting new paper out:

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

I'm not a conspiracy guy but there is a sizeable difference between "ignoring" and "not knowing."

Cowperson

[zuluking]

Since the "oh, yeah well what about the glaciers" argument invariably comes up, I thought this was a very interesting read.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

I'm not a conspiracy guy but there is a sizeable difference between "ignoring" and "not knowing."

Cowperson

I don't get what you're saying?

Anyways .... Gotta hand it to Lu, he's really sticking his neck out.

He could be a tad more diplomatic (and maybe he's being misquoted) when claiming that:

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,"
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

I was under the impression that 2005 was warmer than 2002. Would I be guilty of an accusation of cherry picking when Lu presents cooling since 2002? Goalposts now moved from 1998?

Anyways Lu, it looks like at least has the balls to put his credibility on the line as a young professor which at this stage will get him and his institution multiple media attention and advertisement of his thoughts. He's definitely one of those "where are they now?" characters to be revisited in 10-20 years time.

I've just got problems with the way the thing is written:

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

I'd take a 50 year bet with Lu.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Since the "oh, yeah well what about the glaciers" argument invariably comes up, I thought this was a very interesting read.

Share your comments on the 98% that are accurate if you will. With particular reference to the glaciers in the Athabasca watershed that you claim is an issue, and whilst you're at it talk about Spring snowmelt times and its effect on water quality.

But you're right .... Let me present to you other evidence based on observations where the IPCC screwed up in their calculations.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate
models. The area of summertime sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...gnosis_LOW.pdf

This is really a creationist argument. Present zero evidence yet pick at the holes in the science.

[Dan02]

Just a question regarding your sig Bagor, if science tells us CO2 is the driver behind climate change and increasing temperatures, and science tells us that CO2 levels are substantially higher then at any point in the last 800,000 years, then why are temperatures not really even that close to the peak they've been in the last 800,000 years?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I don't get what you're saying?

.

Lemme lay it out for you . . .

One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

I said the reviewer seems to be implying the facts are obvious and they've been ignored by mainstream research on this topic.

Cowperson

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Share your comments on the 98% that are accurate if you will. With particular reference to the glaciers in the Athabasca watershed that you claim is an issue, and whilst you're at it talk about Spring snowmelt times and its effect on water quality.

But you're right .... Let me present to you other evidence based on observations where the IPCC screwed up in their calculations.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate
models. The area of summertime sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...gnosis_LOW.pdf

This is really a creationist argument. Present zero evidence yet pick at the holes in the science.

Sorry, Bagor, I don't follow you. Your last sentence is particularly bizarre. Science is all about picking at the holes. The problem with climate "science" is the scientific process has become taboo. That's what's so special about the UEA-CRU emails. It actually shows how those fellows attempt to subvert the scientific process.

As per zero evidence, the link I provided (had you read it) is about how the evidence was misrepresented (intentionally or unintentionally.)

Your link is authored by the biggest players in the AGW arena. (Isn't Mann under review at Penn State right now?) Many others sited are very well represented in the Climategate emails and are contributors to IPCC reports. Not saying they're lying (or misrepresenting the truth), but many have been hit by the splatter.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I said the reviewer seems to be implying the facts are obvious and they've been ignored by mainstream research on this topic.

Well colour me skeptical but one would think that such a major discovery that disproves and goes against the grain of thought of 100s of scientific colleagues would be more worthy of a nature or science publication than a significantly lower impact journal. What Lu is claiming, is pretty much as big a scientific breakthrough as you can get regarding disproving commonly accepted scientific theory not to mention the billions of $ (cooling) that he would save the world in mitigation measures ..... agreed? As scientific papers go .... what he has discovered (or decided to insert "ignored" facts) is huge both in scientific value and policy matters.

Surely, nature or science would have been all over this revelation and the insertion of these obvious facts.

All I'm saying is that let's see how this plays out regarding "other" comments on his paper and let's see what he has to say if his projected cooling forecast for the next 50 years doesn't come to happen.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Sorry, Bagor, I don't follow you. Your last sentence is particularly bizarre. Science is all about picking at the holes. The problem with climate "science" is the scientific process has become taboo. That's what's so special about the UEA-CRU emails. It actually shows how those fellows attempt to subvert the scientific process.

Nice to see we're back on topic, if you've read the thread and what has been discussed ad nauseum you'll see that what you claim to be "taboo" is what the e-mails purport to be an attempt to stop junk science getting published because of dishonest editors and subsequent apologies which subsequently got so far out of hand that ....

Repeating and requoting ...FYR the journal in question.

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal. Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_...Research_paper

Originally Posted by zuluking

As per zero evidence, the link I provided (had you read it) is about how the evidence was misrepresented (intentionally or unintentionally.)

That, I accept and concede.
Now... can you address my points where the "observed" evidence has been shown to be greater than the projections? Share your thoughts on that?

Originally Posted by zuluking

Your link is authored by the biggest players in the AGW arena. (Isn't Mann under review at Penn State right now?) Many others sited are very well represented in the Climategate emails and are contributors to IPCC reports. Not saying they're lying (or misrepresenting the truth), but many have been hit by the splatter.

Oh ... no ... you ... don't. FACT of the matter is that no matter how much you'd like to run from the link, all I'm quoting from it is "observed" happenings.

This is exactly what I predicted would happen, take any report, find Mann or Jones in the author list and dismiss the whole report. You've got to do better than that Zulu.

Unless you can prove to me that the "observations" are falsified stop ducking my point that just as where you claimed (and I accepted) that the Himalayan glacier retreat was badly miscalculated so too are the "observational data" regarding Arctic sea ice and "observed sea level rise".

Of course Mann is under investigation, of course Jones and CRU are holding an independent investigation.

Any institution involved in this is going to hold an investigation for transparency reasons. The thing that you should be concerned about is (a) why they weren't outrightfully fired due to all those hardcore cries about "tricks" etc that appear to have lost their weight.

And on the subject of academic investigations for fraud.

(b) why isn't the university of Adelaide investigating Plimer for more DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD?

An example of his fraudulent behavior that HOZ et al have no ethical problem following.

He quotes and cites a fellow scientist Keller as saying

“satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming”

When in fact and in complete context Keller said:

“The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics’ last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics’ entire “tent.” … But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions.”

I can only presume Zulu that you would support an investigation into Plimer and a refund for HOZ re. his deliberate misrepresentation of a colleagues work in an attempt to deceive the public in what has become a politically hijacked issue? Above is one small example. Google "Enting Plimer" for 100+ more in the same book.

Let's move on and agree that the argument against AGW has been tainted by deliberate lies and deceit. Do you concur?

[HOZ]

Warning to all. Don't ever quote (ONCE) from a scientist that Lanny errr......Bagor disagrees with. Or you shall be haunted endlessly!


BTW: The opinion has been SETTLED
Mann doesn't get much love in the comments part of his attempt to right a wrong. Truly Mann has no shame. Tossed Jones under the bus then writes this shlock....2nd paragraph he pulls out the Sarah Pallin bogeyman to tar his critics.


BTW: Check out REX!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Warning to all. Don't ever quote (ONCE) from a scientist that Lanny errr......Bagor disagrees with. Or you shall be haunted endlessly!

Awwwwww poor HOZ. Caught out in a lie/act of deceit/stupidity/gullibleness, then when called on it is unable/refuses to explain himself whether it was a lie or stupidity when questioned several times and he's now the poor victim

Warning to all, don't ever post stuff you either know is a terrible lie or don't understand ... else you'll be called on it. And called on it. And called on it. And called on it to a taunting level.

e.g. Did you ever answer the question HOZ? lol lol lol

Outright liar or downright stupid, what were your intentions? Carry on ... posting stuff you don't understand.

ps happy xmas.

As has been mentioned ...... explain your stupidity or dishonest attempts to mislead. Stupid or dishonest?

[HOZ]

A nice video about AGW.

At 4:53 is an eye-opener!
At 7:36 is a jaw dropper. Watch the programmer flail the data
At 9:26 is some nice advice so we can all learn the truth.

Game, set, and Match.

Or you can continue to smear your opponents as stupid frauds and lose anyways.

Added

Merry Christmas or a Happy Holiday. May everyone be safe and happy in whatever way you choose to celebrate this season!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Or you can continue to smear your opponents as stupid

Oh looksie ... here's a fella on the interweb that says there was x1000 CO2 in the past. If it was on the interweb it must be true I'll cut and paste it and use it for my argument.

[ernie]

Link to the a story on Climate change in the latest issue of the American Chemical Society (ACS) weekly Chemical and Engineering News. The ACS has taken an official position that Global Warming has a human causation...much to the consternation of a good chunk of the membership. The piece, however, is reasonably balanced with beliefs of both extremes presented as well as those that think while CO2 is a partial cause it's not the only cause and not the largest cause. Thought it was an interesting read.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8751cover.html

[Jetsfan]

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing

Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...e-cap-growing/

[photon]

Up since a record low year? Shocking!

There are always variations, just because a new temperature record isn't set every day or the ice doesn't decrease every day doesn't mean the long term trend isn't there. Here's a graph from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (the source the link uses):



http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (the site seems to be down for me)

And this ice is thinner, it's not just the area it covers but how thick it is.

http://novascience.wordpress.com/cat...-ice-increase/

I don't agree totally with the attitude of this next picture, but it does illustrate the problem in thinking with this blog entry and the Daily Mail link it relies on.

EDIT: Oops forgot the pic: