Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Mister Fork]

Oh look - more awesome research methodologies.  A climbing magazine and someone masters dissertation - definitely foundations to form sound theories and data on global warming, and glacial retreating.
   

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2507116   

[CAP1]

(Image removed from quote.)
Don't knock yourself.    (Troglodytes troglodytes)

I simply posted the work of a climate scientist.  I cannot personally spend the time to compile the data and analyze it.  I do think he's one of the ones that have paid the most for his work though, and has stuck to his work when he could have just shut up and gone away.  I personally think he SHOULD have gone away....his career would have been better for it.  

I was asserting that there is evidence that the temperature has definitely not gone down. If you wish to say that the temperatures have leveled as of this year, I would agree. But if temps level off at a solar minimum, and still the year is tied for the second warmest in recorded history... what have we won?

See SHIFTING BASELINES.

I also thought this was intriguing...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

Apparently, some enterprising researcher figured out why the warming trend predicted was under the trend observed.

so.......now, they're saying less water vapor in the upper atmosphere, is causing less insulation.

 yet, it has been previously stated that cooler air can hold less moisture. so, it could be assumed(i know that it's dangerous to assume) that the air is then cooling, thus loosing some ability to hold moisture.
 they said they don't understand why there has been a loss of water vapor.....cooling would explain that loss, since cooler air holds less.

 annnnnd....the sun has been less active. now it's becoming more active, it will warm us some, and cause more evaporation....and between the two, i'd bet it's a safe assumption, that there will be a corrosponding increase in the amount of water vapor. 

[CAP1]

VVEEELLLLYYY intelesting......vvveellly iiieennntelesting indeeeed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/

the last one is a hoot.

[MORAY37]

VVEEELLLLYYY intelesting......vvveellly iiieennntelesting indeeeed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/

the last one is a hoot.

You know what is hilarious?  These attacks on things that are anecdotal at best, when talking about climate science.  This would be akin to a defense Lawyer arguing that the defendant's fly was down, and his shoes untied, so therefore he couldn't possibly have robbed the mini mart....

The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.  

Again, there's nothing here.  The quoting of anecdotal references is poor in a scientific sense, but does absolutely nothing to destabilize the actual science behind climate. After all, the only thing they're attacking is the fact that there's not scientific study behind the "glacier gate scandal"...... something which any climate scientist will laugh at anyway.  Glaciers are more dependent upon precipitation levels than on temperature anyway.  The rainforest thing is just plain stupid.  This is what happens when politicians run reports.  The attacks on these two things are incredibly petty at best.  At worst, criminal.  The people that are attacking them know they have pretty much zero to do with the actual science..... but they have interest in seeing it fail at all cost.

The real damage is in public relations, something which science as a whole is horribly terrible at, IMO.  Good science will be destroyed by badly handled publicity 10 out of 10 times.

[CAP1]

You know what is hilarious?  These attacks on things that are anecdotal at best, when talking about climate science.  This would be akin to a defense Lawyer arguing that the defendant's fly was down, and his shoes untied, so therefore he couldn't possibly have robbed the mini mart....

The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.  

Again, there's nothing here.  The quoting of anecdotal references is poor in a scientific sense, but does absolutely nothing to destabilize the actual science behind climate. After all, the only thing they're attacking is the fact that there's not scientific study behind the "glacier gate scandal"...... something which any climate scientist will laugh at anyway.  Glaciers are more dependent upon precipitation levels than on temperature anyway.  The rainforest thing is just plain stupid.  This is what happens when politicians run reports.  The attacks on these two things are incredibly petty at best.  At worst, criminal.  The people that are attacking them know they have pretty much zero to do with the actual science..... but they have interest in seeing it fail at all cost.

The real damage is in public relations, something which science as a whole is horribly terrible at, IMO.  Good science will be destroyed by badly handled publicity 10 out of 10 times.

highlighted sentence.......but then why are they all trying to say that warming 1/2 a degree will melt them all, etc etc?

 i don't even remotely doubt your beliefs, or motives. i truly believe your motives are good. the problem comes from the fact that the data that has been use, has been proven to be flawed in some way shape or form. THAT alone is what proves that there may not be any of this caused by man. why? because if man WERe causing the planet to warm, then there would have been no need to change any data, or to cherry pick where they took their data from.
 there was an entire new industry built off of this stuff. there is money to be made if it continues, and more to be made if it escalates.
 the oil companies(whom everyone says are behind all attempts to show that global warming is not man made) will continue to make money(lots of it) regardless of the outcome, thus nullifying claims that they stand to lose.
 the new industries built around global warming, on the other hand, stand to lose magnificently, should this all be disproven. due to this, they will stop at nothing to keep it going, regardless the cost to the people.

 even the water vapor thing you mentioned before.........it all still comes back to the sun. it almost seems that since the co2 thing is falling apart, now they're gonna try the water vapor thing.

 

[sluggish]

If glaciers rely more on percipitation than temp, and warming creates more percipitation, why are the glaciers receding?

[Vulcan]

Rising global temperatures that fit neatly with increasingly rapid industrialization make me suspect that, despite the botched UN climate report, they really might be onto something.

As for the argument about AGW distracting from issues that really matter.  There is some merit to that, but at the same time it strikes me as a sleight of hand.  In the United States, where the law and regulations have been enforced, there's been in improvement over the decades, not decline.  The irony is that public support for enforcement of regulations has reacted inversely to the successes, and politicians take notice.  So the next time we see a thread about the disintegration of enforcement of environmental protections here in the United States, some of which protect our drinking water, and you all are outraged, let me know.

But the numbers don't match what they predicted.

AGW is distracting from the issues as there are those that are hijacking it to make money.

The carbon trading schemes are a perfect example. Dunno bout the US but this system will kill manufacturing industries here that are already borderline. Those industries have a habit of packing up shop and moving to china (or india) where there are no carbon taxes (among other things). They drive the need for more power in china, and guess what china builds? New coal burning power stations that pump more CO2 into the atmosphere.

So the end result in participating in this stupid scheme is that first we give money to 3rd world countries and have no idea where it goes, and secondly drive our industries to those countries and end up with even more pollution in the atmosphere.

Next example, tuvalu. It's a small island nation in the pacific jumping up and down at AGW conferences demanding money and help for the AGW causing the sea to rise and flood the island. It's often held up as a real current example of the dangers of AGW by the AGW crowd and the press. BUT, the problem isn't AGW, it is that the locals dynamited the reefs for fishing and material to make roads. They also cleaned out the fresh water table underground destabilizing the land. The reefs provided a natural barrier to waves, no more natural barrier = waves hit the shore and cause erosion. But do they stop blowing the snot out of their reefs? No! Because it's AGW's fault.

I'm no pro-pollution, I hate it, and I think regardless of the AGW we need to stop dumping stuff into our atmosphere. But this AGW bandwagon has been hijacked by those out to make a quick buck. This has lead to sensationalism driving the predictions.

[Anaxogoras]

But the numbers don't match what they predicted.

That's not a surprise at all.  Read some history of science and you will see just how infrequently predictions are confirmed.  Of course, it's happened many times in the past that a theory is confirmed even though it turns out to be junk.  And likewise, theories that were later accepted were at first big losers.

[Vulcan]

The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.  

But the people driving the AGW argument were happy to hold them out as motivating factors for the public. Now if those people need to use dishonest examples how can we trust the science part of the equation they put forward - especially when so much of it is vague probabilities with no absolutes?

And before you say 'oh that was the politicians not the scientists', the scientists must've known the data was wrong. After all weren't these reports signed off by THOUSANDS of scientists? So either the scientists are not reading the reports being put out and signing them off blind, or they are reading them and keeping quiet about the dishonesty. Either way your pro-AGW scientists then exhibit a bias and dishonest, and that makes for bad science.

Oh and:

Climategate timeline banner

http://www.box.net/shared/77imjivith

[MORAY37]

 even the water vapor thing you mentioned before.........it all still comes back to the sun. it almost seems that since the co2 thing is falling apart, now they're gonna try the water vapor thing.

 

Just to clear up any misconception, the link I posted was a study that showed a decrease in water vapor at a particularly important part of the atmosphere that influenced temperature.

The past decade hasn't been within the predictions, and many studies were trying to determine why, especially since the 80's and 90's were ABOVE CO₂'s predicted forcing.  This study might have figured out why.  Water vapor is the single most important gas involved.  Even at small concentrations, it is a major player.

There was still warming over the time period, it simply wasn't the predictive value.  You are missing the intent of the study.

[batch]

as Ive said many times........... Ive yet to see a FACTUAL study that there even is "global warming"

Moray points out that 2009 ties for the warmest year in recorded history......... but he refuses to address the fact that they cherry picked weather station data to achieve that number

I personally believe that 2009 was the COLDEST year in recorded history......... and the temperatures have decreased at an astounding rate EVERY year for the last 100 years

I can quickly produce some fancy charts and graphs...... a few images that show world anomalies and they will be just as accurate as any chart that has been show so far in this thread

all I will need to do is EXACTLY the same things the "alarmists" are doing......... hand select which stations I want to use for my data and only use those temperatures............

I can very quickly prove that there is no such thing as global warming and be just as correct as any "alarmist" has been


that is of course unless you want to try to be honest about the situation and actually use ALL the data and show FACTUAL information about what is happening

for instance lets take all the data used for the 2009 averages which make up this "record" year.......... then compare them to data from the SAME stations and ONLY the same stations for the last 100 years....... you will find that 2009 was nowhere close to a record year and in fact not even the warmest in the last few decades

what they are trying to do is simple... as an exaggerated example:

'weve measured the average temperatures for the last 100 years in antartica...... then weve compared that to the average temperatures for the last 10 years in Columbia...... weve discovered that the last 10 years have been extremely hotter than the previous 90'................... DOH

[MORAY37]

But the people driving the AGW argument were happy to hold them out as motivating factors for the public. Now if those people need to use dishonest examples how can we trust the science part of the equation they put forward - especially when so much of it is vague probabilities with no absolutes?

And before you say 'oh that was the politicians not the scientists', the scientists must've known the data was wrong. After all weren't these reports signed off by THOUSANDS of scientists? So either the scientists are not reading the reports being put out and signing them off blind, or they are reading them and keeping quiet about the dishonesty. Either way your pro-AGW scientists then exhibit a bias and dishonest, and that makes for bad science.

No, I'm sorry you are wrong.  When thousands of human beings work on a single project, some of them are going to screw up.  Some of them did.  Why they did is not exactly material.  Again, these attacks are on limited anecdotal evidence contained within the IPCC report.  

While I will support their validity at this point, I will also say that I already personally know of two studies ongoing in pre-publication that have empirical evidence supporting glacier recession over the past 20 years from colleagues involved.  (I think someone saw this coming, BTW, but that is just my personal opinion.)

But again, refuting things on the basis of simple anecdotal evidence doesn't refute the postulate.  It simply means someone will have to do the work more concisely to shut up those that are attacking it.  But, in my estimation, those attacks on mundane points won't stop until they have self admitted 100% proof for AGW.  100% proof is virtually impossible for anything in science (see "gravity" and "atomic theory").... so by extension, nothing will ever be settled in the denialist world, even after it is way past too late....which I already personally feel it is.    

[MORAY37]

as Ive said many times........... Ive yet to see a FACTUAL study that there even is "global warming"

Moray points out that 2009 ties for the warmest year in recorded history......... but he refuses to address the fact that they cherry picked weather station data to achieve that number

Did you read the study and methodology?

[batch]

yes and the study and methodology very clearly points out cherry picking data

[MORAY37]

yes and the study and methodology very clearly points out cherry picking data

Explain how so.  (I'm also assuming your use of Hansen et al (2010), because i posted it.  If you are using HADCRUT, please indicate)

Here's the link.  Have a blast. Find a clear methodological issue.  Take all the time you need, and feel free to ask for some clarification on the more technical aspects from whomever you wish. (I would offer myself, but that might add to your mystery bias.)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf