Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

[Gannon Goodson]

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

That statement should frighten the hell out of anyone who believes in liberty.

 

[Sandvol]

There's no question that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen due to man since 1970. But, there doesn't appear to be any warming caused by it.

 

[Sandvol]

and is an example of how alarmists try to use skewed data and omit all relevant data to support their cause...i.e. they have to lie. This is a chart of the atmospheric data where only the circled portion was presented by Santer et. al.

 

[BartW]

So, the AP, Politifact, and Factcheck are all independent media outlets? I know PSU investigated Mann and cleared him of any wrong doing of course. But, Mann indicated in his testimony that he believed what Jones was asking him to do was clearly wrong. And the Parliamentary Science Sub-Committee hardly cleared Jones of any wrong doing. And, if he didn't do anything wrong why did he step down? And, why is it that they only focus on the surface temperature data and ignore and hide the proxy data?

Jones was wrong not to comply with FOI requests but he wasn't hiding anything damning. Here is the Parliamentary review

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that
“global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”."

The big scandal about "hiding" tree ring data is a joke. They used tree ring data as a proxy for temperatures for the past ~2000 years which worked well until 1960 when they switched over to actual temperature measurements because tree ring data began to diverge from temperature data. This was not a secret and is openly discussed in the literature. And tree rings are only one of several types of proxy data.

95% of CRU's data was publicly available, and they are working on making it all available, but they are bound by commercial agreements with some other national meteorological organizations.

 

[allvol123]

Global warming. A brotherhood of snake oil salesmen.

 

[BartW]

and is an example of how alarmists try to use skewed data and omit all relevant data to support their cause...i.e. they have to lie. This is a chart of the atmospheric data where only the circled portion was presented by Santer et. al.

.

 

[Sandvol]

Jones was wrong not to comply with FOI requests but he wasn't hiding anything damning. Here is the Parliamentary review

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that
“global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”."

The big scandal about "hiding" tree ring data is a joke. They used tree ring data as a proxy for temperatures for the past ~2000 years which worked well until 1960 when they switched over to actual temperature measurements because tree ring data began to diverge from temperature data. This was not a secret and is openly discussed in the literature. And tree rings are only one of several types of proxy data.

95% of CRU's data was publicly available, and they are working on making it all available, but they are bound by commercial agreements with some other national meteorological organizations.

Except that the tree ring data totally contradicted the work by Jones and Mann regarding the Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age.

 

[Sandvol]

and is an example of how alarmists try to use skewed data and omit all relevant data to support their cause...i.e. they have to lie. This is a chart of the atmospheric data where only the circled portion was presented by Santer et. al.

No, this is how alarmists manipulate data.

 

[Sandvol]

Jones was wrong not to comply with FOI requests but he wasn't hiding anything damning. Here is the Parliamentary review

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that
“global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”."

The big scandal about "hiding" tree ring data is a joke. They used tree ring data as a proxy for temperatures for the past ~2000 years which worked well until 1960 when they switched over to actual temperature measurements because tree ring data began to diverge from temperature data. This was not a secret and is openly discussed in the literature. And tree rings are only one of several types of proxy data.

95% of CRU's data was publicly available, and they are working on making it all available, but they are bound by commercial agreements with some other national meteorological organizations.

That's was proven to be a joke. The agreements only stated that their data had to be attributed to the respective organizations.

 

[Sandvol]

"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that
“global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”."


There is no scientific consensus.

 

[Sandvol]

.

My chart actually came from a real example-your's don't.

 

[BartW]

Except that the tree ring data totally contradicted the work by Jones and Mann regarding the Medieval Warming Period and the Mini Ice Age.

That's was proven to be a joke. The agreements only stated that their data had to be attributed to the respective organizations.

Enlighten me

No, this is how alarmists manipulate data.

My chart actually came from a real example-your's don't.

It’s impossible to tell the context of the one page sourceless pdf you attached. It’s unclear whether that figure is even in the piece of literature the pdf is referring to. It looks like it was printed by a global warming skeptic based on the language and plot. And it looks pretty old.

My plots are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and an average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT74 global surface temperatures, respectively. Sorry I didn’t provide the source it was given earlier in this thread.

There is no scientific consensus.

So now you're denying the authority of the parliamentary review you just cited?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I think its crazy to believe that in what 120 years at the absolute most that we have been running factories...trains..and later cars that we have made any real impact on the Earths atmosphere. Doesn't 1 volcano eruption release as much air pollution as every car on the planet does in like a century? So the same scientists that believe the Earth is almost 5 billion years old believe that humans have completely altered the atmosphere primarily since the industrial revolution? Nature is cyclical. Hot...cold. Wet...dry. I. Think that will be the case long after humanity is gone. JMO

 

[FLVOL69]

Exactly....Stop Global Whining !

 

[Sandvol]

Enlighten me




It’s impossible to tell the context of the one page sourceless pdf you attached. It’s unclear whether that figure is even in the piece of literature the pdf is referring to. It looks like it was printed by a global warming skeptic based on the language and plot. And it looks pretty old.
My plots are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and an average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT74 global surface temperatures, respectively. Sorry I didn’t provide the source it was given earlier in this thread.



So now you're denying the authority of the parliamentary review you just cited?

This is from Energy and Environment Vol. 22

 

[Sandvol]

"Enlighten me"
View attachment data_from_the_hadcrut_dataset_100304.pdf

Anyone with any semblance of intelligence can surmise from this letter that there never was any contractual agreement with Sweden and probably not any other country that prevented releasing the data.

Also, why doesn't the surface temperature data agree with the atmospheric data and why do you choose to use only the data that fits your template?

 

[Sandvol]

Enlighten me




It’s impossible to tell the context of the one page sourceless pdf you attached. It’s unclear whether that figure is even in the piece of literature the pdf is referring to. It looks like it was printed by a global warming skeptic based on the language and plot. And it looks pretty old.

My plots are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and an average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT74 global surface temperatures, respectively. Sorry I didn’t provide the source it was given earlier in this thread.



So now you're denying the authority of the parliamentary review you just cited?

I didn't cite the parliamentary review. You did goof. I just said their investigation hardly cleared him and just question their authority to declare a consensus.

 

[Sandvol]

Here is a blurb from the Penn State inquiry where Mann admits Jones asked him to delete important data:

The internal enquiry has found that Mann did not “participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. For the full report, click here (pdf).

Nor did he “delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data” relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. One email that has received much media attention was sent to Mann by Phil Jones, then director of the UEA’s Climatic Research Centre, on 29 May 2008. It asked Mann to delete some emails regarding the 2007 IPCC report.

In the months since the email leak, Mann has repeatedly said that he did not heed to Jones’ request. Penn State’s enquiry confirmed this.

The report is not clear about whether Mann’s behaviour has harmed the public trust in science. It cites Penn State’s official ethical standards, which says faculty have an obligation to maintain high ethical standards in order to foster public trust in science. It then goes on to discuss the fallout from the email leak which, it says, may have polarised the public into two camps: one that believes the leak undermines climate science and another that does not.

“After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community,” reads the report. This final point will now be at the centre of a further investigation.

“This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong,” Mann told New Scientist. “I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts.”

 

[Sandvol]

All the proxy data, all the balloon data, all the satellite data do not support surface temperature data and do not support AGW. The data that appears to be most suspect is the surface temperature data but that's the data the psycho alarmists keep using. And, now even their surface temperature data is letting them down. You can only run a hoax for so long. They tried shifting the argument to artic sea ice but now sadly it looks like that is starting to go the wrong way and that ship of fools down there looked like the Keystone Cops. The liberal media was even laughing at them.

 

[Sandvol]

I think its crazy to believe that in what 120 years at the absolute most that we have been running factories...trains..and later cars that we have made any real impact on the Earths atmosphere. Doesn't 1 volcano eruption release as much air pollution as every car on the planet does in like a century? So the same scientists that believe the Earth is almost 5 billion years old believe that humans have completely altered the atmosphere primarily since the industrial revolution? Nature is cyclical. Hot...cold. Wet...dry. I. Think that will be the case long after humanity is gone. JMO

Of course and that's what the good data supports.

 

[508mikey]

Hello VN - is everybody nice and warm today ?

 

[FLVOL69]

Hello VN - is everybody nice and warm today ?

I am...got the ac on now.

 

[508mikey]

I am...got the ac on now.

trade houses with me

 

[82_VOL_83]

Fox News - 2013 was 4th hottest year on record

Hell hath frozen over

And tomorrow morning will be the coldest temperature that I have ever been exposed too in my life. Big f'ing deal. I say global warming now! Cincy needs it!

predicted -12 below with near -30 wind chills.