Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,651
#1,651
82_VOL_83 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a balmy 16 at the North Pole & a chilly -29 at the South Pole. Stop crying we have a catastrophe here.
 
#1,662
#1,662
Sandvol said:
This is from Energy and Environment Vol. 22
Click to expand...

Author? Edition? A quick google didn’t get any hits. Or if you can cite the paper your pdf is referring to that would be even better.

Sandvol said:
"Enlighten me"
View attachment 73289

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?
Click to expand...

Lulz, I don't even know where to begin. For one, the letter from SMHI clearly indicates they denied the initial request from the UK MetOffice. Secondly, the hacked e-mails even discuss the IPR agreements BEFORE CA began harassing the CRU with FoI requests. Thirdly open data policy in earth science has been an issue (that's being worked on) long before climategate. Claiming the commercial agreements never existed is silly. Here is the WMO's resolution in 1995 that concerns "WMO policy and practice for the exchange of meteorological and related data and products including guidelines on relationships in commercial meteorological activities". Here is a statement on CRU data availability including a link to written agreements not to pass the data on to third parties.

Again 95% of the CRU's data was already publically available. If that 5% (including the SMHI's data) was "suppressed" because it contradicted AGW, why hasn't anybody used the SMHI's data to disprove AGW now that it is available? (The answer is because CA's FoI requests were never about the data)

Sandvol said:
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.
Click to expand...

You brought up the parliamentary review. And if you actually read it you would know that it, like all other investigations, found the CRU didn’t falsify or suppress data.

Sandvol said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point(?)

Sandvol said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? Surface temperature data are fine and clearly indicate warming. The oceans and troposphere are warming as well (the stratosphere, as predicted, is cooling). Here are several independent data sets for several climate indicators from NOAA's site. You’ll have to show us all this proxy data, weather balloon data, and satellite data that disprove AGW.

Sandvol said:
Of course and that's what the good data supports.
Click to expand...

Please, share your “good data”
 
Last edited:
#1,663
#1,663
Stop hogging all the snow Knoxville, the slopes are bare here in the pacific northwest.

Stay warm fellas :)
 
#1,664
#1,664
"You brought up the parliamentary review. And if you actually read it you would know that it, like all other investigations, found the CRU didn’t falsify or suppress data."

I can't tell if you're intentionally lying or obfuscating or you just don't know or understand what they did to the tree ring data. Scientists aren't allowed to throw out part of a data set because it doesn't support what they believe and substitute a totally different type of data that better fits their belief. That isn't scientific and it is wrong. And, then when another scientist wanted to examine their data they would not release it and made up an excuse about contractual obligations. The tree ring data was not widely available. And, when they did finally release the data after all this it showed they left out data and inserted other completely different type of data into their "hockey stick" graft and did curve fitting. Surely you know this. I did not bring up the parliamentary review-you did. Why would I bring it up? It was a sham. And, that sham of an investigation did not clear Jones or the CRU.
 
Last edited:
#1,665
#1,665
"What are you smoking? Surface temperature data are fine and clearly indicate warming. The oceans and troposphere are warming as well (the stratosphere, as predicted, is cooling). Here are several independent data sets for several climate indicators from NOAA's site. You’ll have to show us all this proxy data, weather balloon data, and satellite data that disprove AGW."

Yes, surface temperature data does indicate warming. But, that is the only conclusion you can make from the data. It doesn't agree with the satellite data or the proxy data. It doesn't prove or disprove AGW. I am not going to find the satellite data for you or the proxy data. You find it if you really want to but I can help you. You sure won't find it on your psycho alarmists' web sites.

P.S.-You should know where to find the proxy data since you are such an expert on CLIMATEGATE.
 
Last edited:
#1,667
#1,667
Here is your post #1621.

"It’s funny how Climategate got a ton of coverage when it broke but after people actually took the time to read the stolen e-mails and they didn’t contain anything suspicious, hardly any media coverage at all. I guess, “Global Warming not a conspiracy after all” doesn’t make a great headline.

Official investigations were conducted by the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, their Independent Climate Change Review, International Science Assessment Panel, Penn State University, the University of East Anglia, the EPA, the Department of Commerce, the NSF, NOAA... many other independent investigations were conducted by media outlets, the AP, Politifact, Factcheck, etc. If you’re interested in what actually happened and not the smear campaign’s version, I would start by reading the Wiki or CRU's press release."

So WHO brought up the parliamentary investigation? You can't keep your facts straight. I just said it hardly cleared him. It was a SHAM.
 
#1,668
#1,668
Sandvol said:
I can't tell if you're intentionally lying or obfuscating or you just don't know or understand what they did to the tree ring data. Scientists aren't allowed to throw out part of a data set because it doesn't support what they believe and substitute a totally different type of data that better fits their belief. That isn't scientific and it is wrong. And, then when another scientist wanted to examine their data they would not release it and made up an excuse about contractual obligations. The tree ring data was not widely available. And, when they did finally release the data after all this it showed they left out data and inserted other completely different type of data into their "hockey stick" graft and did curve fitting. Surely you know this. I did not bring up the parliamentary review-you did. Why would I bring it up? It was a sham. And, that sham of an investigation did not clear Jones or the CRU.
Click to expand...

I already explained this. Scientists threw out tree ring data after 1960 because it began to diverge from direct instrumental measurements (which are much more reliable than proxy measurements). The decline of tree growth is a well-documented phenomenon that is openly discussed in the literature. You’re spewing nonsense.

Sandvol said:
Yes, surface temperature data does indicate warming. But, that is the only conclusion you can make from the data. It doesn't agree with the satellite data or the proxy data. It doesn't prove or disprove AGW. I am not going to find the satellite data for you or the proxy data. You find it if you really want to but I can help you. You sure won't find it on your psycho alarmists' web sites.

P.S.-You should know where to find the proxy data since you are such an expert on CLIMATEGATE.
Click to expand...

I’ve pointed to several independent datasets in the NOAA link above. Which satellite data set specifically do you take issue with? Why? I can easily find proxy data. I can even find it on my psycho alarmists web sites that cite peer-reviewed literature. I just can’t find the proxy data you claim disproves AGW.

Which studies were compromised by climategate? How? Cite papers and data sets. What/where is your evidence? The supposed scandal involves maybe a half dozen people. How does it affect the thousands of research papers by thousands of climate scientists worldwide? How does it affect the work done before the alleged culprits graduated? Or before they were even born? Show me something specific.

Sandvol said:
You don't even understand what you're arguing or you can't read.
Click to expand...

The irony :birgits_giggle:

Sandvol said:
So WHO brought up the parliamentary investigation? You can't keep your facts straight. I just said it hardly cleared him. It was a SHAM.
Click to expand...

I listed it as one of several investigations that cleared CRU of scientific misconduct, you took beef with the parliamentary review specifically. I guess you’re right that I mentioned it first but whatever, it’s beside the point.
 
#1,669
#1,669
"Which studies were compromised by climategate? How? Cite papers and data sets. What/where is your evidence? The supposed scandal involves maybe a half dozen people. How does it affect the thousands of research papers by thousands of climate scientists worldwide? How does it affect the work done before the alleged culprits graduated? Or before they were even born? Show me something specific."

You just stated above what study was compromised. So scientists are now allowed to throw out part of a data set because part of the data doesn't conform to what they think it should be and use completely different data that better fits their narrative? You're not making any sense.
 
#1,670
#1,670
"I already explained this. Scientists threw out tree ring data after 1960 because it began to diverge from direct instrumental measurements (which are much more reliable than proxy measurements). The decline of tree growth is a well-documented phenomenon that is openly discussed in the literature. You’re spewing nonsense."

This is total fiction. Jones and Mann tried to hide the fact that the data had been manipulated and then when another scientist wanted to look at their data they started a cover-up. This is what climate gate was all about. Jones emailed Mann and asked him to delete the post 1960 data and Mann would not comply. Then after they had been caught they invented an excuse about "decline of tree growth phenomenon" for throwing out the data that didn't fit their template. Mann admitted in the Penn State review that is what happened. In the name of scientific integrity they are not allowed to do that. They have lost all their credibility.

(Pissst-By the way those much more accurate direct instrumental measurements he's talking about are called thermometers. You see those weren't invented until 1960.)
 
Last edited:
#1,671
#1,671
"I listed it as one of several investigations that cleared CRU of scientific misconduct, you took beef with the parliamentary review specifically. I guess you’re right that I mentioned it first but whatever, it’s beside the point."

Please cite one unbiased scientific review that has cleared Jones.
 
#1,672
#1,672
I am not saying there isn't or there is global warming. All we have right now is an increase in surface temperature data since about 1950 that might be suspect. All the other data sets don't support the surface data right now. Also, we have a rise in CO2 levels. But, no one that I know of has been able to prove a dependence of the surface temperature rise to the increase in CO2. As a matter of fact recent data shows a divergence. Also, we know from the proxy data that the earth has been warmer a couple of times during the last two thousand years than it is right now. So, all we can conclude right now from what we have is climate cycles have natural causes. That is all.

Also, I think it is worthy to continue to study this with integrity. But, as long as liberals distort the data to drive a political agenda and control governmental policy such as Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" then we're going to have a problem. Liberals like Gore have turned this into "junk science."
 
Last edited:
#1,674
#1,674
Sandvol said:
You just stated above what study was compromised. So scientists are now allowed to throw out part of a data set because part of the data doesn't conform to what they think it should be and use completely different data that better fits their narrative? You're not making any sense.
Click to expand...
Sandvol said:
This is total fiction. Jones and Mann tried to hide the fact that the data had been manipulated and then when another scientist wanted to look at their data they started a cover-up. This is what climate gate was all about. Jones emailed Mann and asked him to delete the post 1960 data and Mann would not comply. Then after they had been caught they invented an excuse about "decline of tree growth phenomenon" for throwing out the data that didn't fit their template. Mann admitted in the Penn State review that is what happened. In the name of scientific integrity they are not allowed to do that. They have lost all their credibility.
Click to expand...

I’m going to assume you say this out of honest ignorance. As I’ve stated, the divergence of tree ring data from direct instrumental temperature measurements has been openly discussed in peer-reviewed literature since Jacoby 1995. The IPCC covered it in the third report and in even more detail in the fourth report. Why would Jones and Mann conspire to cover up the decline in tree ring growth when it has been openly discussed in the literature since 1995? Climategate wasn’t even about the Yamal tree ring data – in fact McIntyre admits to having obtained that data from the Russians in 2004. It was about climate skeptics taking phrases in the hacked e-mails out of context as part of a deliberate smear campaign.

Sandvol said:
Please cite one unbiased scientific review that has cleared Jones.
Click to expand...

I’ve listed several. Of course they’re all a sham according to the conspiracy theorist.

Sandvol said:
I am not saying there isn't or there is global warming. All we have right now is an increase in surface temperature data since about 1950 that might be suspect. All the other data sets don't support the surface data right now. Also, we have a rise in CO2 levels. But, no one that I know of has been able to prove a dependence of the surface temperature rise to the increase in CO2. As a matter of fact recent data shows a divergence. Also, we know from the proxy data that the earth has been warmer a couple of times during the last two thousand years than it is right now. So, all we can conclude right now from what we have is climate cycles have natural causes. That is all.

Also, I think it is worthy to continue to study this with integrity. But, as long as liberals distort the data to drive a political agenda and control governmental policy such as Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" then we're going to have a problem. Liberals like Gore have turned this into "junk science."
Click to expand...

All other data sets do support the surface temperature data. NOAA’s website shows data for Land Surface Air Temperature, Sea-surface Temperature, Marine Air Temperature, Sea Level, NH (March-April) Snow Cover, Tropospheric Temperature, Ocean Heat Content (0-700m), Specific Humidity, Stratospheric Temperature, September Arctic Sea-Ice Extent, and Glacier Mass Balance. In fact it shows several data sets for each climate indicator. I’ve also linked several other proxy data. You have yet to provide one data set that contradicts AGW. You have yet to specifically state which data set(s) you take issue with.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top