Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

[BrianH]

Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle. The model mean seasonal cycle of sea ice volume ranges from 28,600 km^3 in April to 13,400 km^3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend. Updates will be generated at approximately two-weekly intervals.

Polar Science Center - APL-UW - Arctic Sea Ice Volume

I don't think that anyone doubts that the globe warms. I think associating human activities with it is a bit arrogant of us has humans. Should we clean up our act? sure. Should we find alternative fuel sources that create less polution? Yes. Have people caused global warming? Doubt it.

Brian, events do not occur in a vacuum. Something causes them. Several times in the geological past we have seen rapid warming as the result of rapid increases in GHGs. Those were caused by volcanic events. Today, the rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, that does not matter in the least as far as the physics of the situation is concerned.

Whatever the source of the GHGs, the result will still be rapid warming. The link I gave you was the the American Institute of Physics. The information is written by physicists. Real scientists currently practicing their profession.

The problem with AGW theorist is that they change their evidence from year to year. "Oh wait, that was wrong, but it's actually this." We saw this in the IPCC when they published a report with the Mann hockey stick graph, and then withdrew it in the Fourth IPCC report because Mann had manupulated information and left out key time periods in our history.

As far as Volcanoes and such, we have NO way to prove that. Sure, Geologist can look at the rocks and make an educated guess at what was going on, but I doubt roaches were running experiments on GHGs in the atosphere.

I guess my point is that there is SOOOOO much, especially in the scientific community that we don't know about the earth. Thr problem is when we assume that we know everything. The other planets in our solar system are warming as well, how is this explained???? I'm sure some AGW theorist has come up with specific reasons why each planet is warming, therefore disconnecting it with Earth's warming.

Like I said before, I have no problem cleaning up our act, but I won't believe AGW until it's proven.

 

[Old Rocks]

Brian, you have just made a slew of assertations without on iota of data to back any of them up. The term for that is bovine feces.

 

[ba1614]

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

 

[BrianH]

Brian, you have just made a slew of assertations without on iota of data to back any of them up. The term for that is bovine feces.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

If you want data about the IPCC dropping the Mann Graph, here it is.... I've provided a news report from headline news and the actual link to the third and fourth IPCC Assessments. You'll find the graph in the third, but not in the fourth...hmmmmmmm. But how can it be proof in the third, but not proof in the fourth?? Oh that's right, manipulated data for desired results. I believe the terms for your ignorance is "Naive."

 

[BrianH]

Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data' - Telegraph
Climate Scientists Alleged to Have Manipulated Data Environmental Management & Energy News Environmental Leader
Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data

Here's more data about other fake evidence....

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Look fellow, anyone can research the fact that the world is rapidly warming. You can see it yourself, from the warming of the rivers and lakes, to the melting of the ice in the glaciers and ice caps.

Think for a minute, how would you cooridinate the papers from all the scientists around the world that have published on this subject? How can you posit a conspriracy that is world wide and involves scientists from the many differant nations and political systems?

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

 

[daveman]

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

Would you have trusted Richard Nixon to investigate G. Gordon Liddy?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Look fellow, anyone can research the fact that the world is rapidly warming. You can see it yourself, from the warming of the rivers and lakes, to the melting of the ice in the glaciers and ice caps.

Think for a minute, how would you cooridinate the papers from all the scientists around the world that have published on this subject? How can you posit a conspriracy that is world wide and involves scientists from the many differant nations and political systems?

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

I'm trying to figure out how that would work. Doing such on this large of a scale would have to be for hiding something very big indeed? Word government? Anything less wouldn't be worth lieing to the whole fucking population of the fucking planet and the trillions and time it would takes to do so. Is it possible, sure, but not likely.

Your accusing these scientist of some serious stuff and saying that they are bold face thefts and crooks. Every government of our planet believes in the warming of our world.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

Would you have trusted Richard Nixon to investigate G. Gordon Liddy?

So what you are saying is that all scientists are dishonest and in on some sort of worldwide conspiracy?

 

[BrianH]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Look fellow, anyone can research the fact that the world is rapidly warming. You can see it yourself, from the warming of the rivers and lakes, to the melting of the ice in the glaciers and ice caps.

Think for a minute, how would you cooridinate the papers from all the scientists around the world that have published on this subject? How can you posit a conspriracy that is world wide and involves scientists from the many differant nations and political systems?

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

If this problem is all regonized universally by all of these scientists, why would U.S. scientists being exonerated have any worth or real meaning in this debate? And like I've said, I haven't denied the fact that the globe is warming. What I have denied is the THEORY that humans are causing the globe to warm. Scientists, even with the IPCC, have acknowledged that data was deliberately hidden and/or published without peer review or being confirmed in order to influence political leaders to shape climate friendly policies. Wait! What's this? People lying about things to get politicians to pass policies?? But how can this be? Oh yeah, everyone and their dog does it.....

All of you AGW alarnists are exactly the same. You and The Good Shephard would get along nicely.... both of you have the awesome ability to ignore all evidence other than you're own biased information. I don't even really know why I'm debating you on this, considering that all you will do is discredit evidence that I show you. Simple fact....you can't prove that humans are causing global warming...........

 

[BrianH]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Look fellow, anyone can research the fact that the world is rapidly warming. You can see it yourself, from the warming of the rivers and lakes, to the melting of the ice in the glaciers and ice caps.

Think for a minute, how would you cooridinate the papers from all the scientists around the world that have published on this subject? How can you posit a conspriracy that is world wide and involves scientists from the many differant nations and political systems?

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

I'm trying to figure out how that would work. Doing such on this large of a scale would have to be for hiding something very big indeed? Word government? Anything less wouldn't be worth lieing to the whole fucking population of the fucking planet and the trillions and time it would takes to do so. Is it possible, sure, but not likely.

Your accusing these scientist of some serious stuff and saying that they are bold face thefts and crooks. Every government of our planet believes in the warming of our world.

Like I said before, I'm not denying that the globe is warming, I just don't believe humans have a big an impact as these people think. Do you really find it hard to believe that governments are corrupt??? I can name two countries, just on our continent alone, whose governments are corrupt. There are too many people who have profited from global warming to let it die. If you were a scientist in a dying field, and you finally got the governments of the world to invest money in your science and studies, you'd keep it going for all that it's worth. I don't find it hard to believe that these scientists are willing to fudge data in order to keep their jobs..........

 

[BrianH]

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

Would you have trusted Richard Nixon to investigate G. Gordon Liddy?

So what you are saying is that all scientists are dishonest and in on some sort of worldwide conspiracy?

All of these scientists didn't just bring this up independently at once...like they somehow magically all had the same idea. Like most anything else, one or a few people have the idea, and then the trend spreads...much similar to how you came to believe in it. I'm sure you didn't just wake up one day and say "You know what? I think the earth is warming and humans are causing it."

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, Brian, the trend has been spreading since Fourier first noted in the 1820s that the earth was too warm considering the incoming radiation, and the albedo of the ground. Then, in 1858, Tyndal measured the absorbtion spectra of the GHGs. And in 1896, Arrhenius stated that the increased CO2 would cause the earth to warm.

As the science got better, Callender, Sues, and now Hansen, furthered the research, along with thousands of other scientists that contibuted data and evidence of the warming of the earth, and the influence of the GHGs.

In science, the falsification of a standard theory, or accepted hypothesis, is just as noted as the positing of a new one. Were there to be serious problems with AGW, we would already know about it, considering the number of researchers now looking at it. As it stands, all the policy statements of virtually all the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities, state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Proof of which you can see right now in the rising food prices.

 

[daveman]

And, lastly, all those supposedly involved in fraud in Britain, and Dr. Mann, here in the US, have been exonerated by their peers of any charges of scientific fraud.

Would you have trusted Richard Nixon to investigate G. Gordon Liddy?

So what you are saying is that all scientists are dishonest and in on some sort of worldwide conspiracy?

No. I'm saying that if you believe the investigation by people involved in a scandal that no wrongdoing occurred, you're a fool.

 

[daveman]

Would you have trusted Richard Nixon to investigate G. Gordon Liddy?

So what you are saying is that all scientists are dishonest and in on some sort of worldwide conspiracy?

All of these scientists didn't just bring this up independently at once...like they somehow magically all had the same idea. Like most anything else, one or a few people have the idea, and then the trend spreads...much similar to how you came to believe in it. I'm sure you didn't just wake up one day and say "You know what? I think the earth is warming and humans are causing it."

And the first people to push the idea provided their altered data to everyone else. No wonder everyone else got the same results.

When you stack the deck, it's easy to win.

 

[BrianH]

Yes, Brian, the trend has been spreading since Fourier first noted in the 1820s that the earth was too warm considering the incoming radiation, and the albedo of the ground. Then, in 1858, Tyndal measured the absorbtion spectra of the GHGs. And in 1896, Arrhenius stated that the increased CO2 would cause the earth to warm.

As the science got better, Callender, Sues, and now Hansen, furthered the research, along with thousands of other scientists that contibuted data and evidence of the warming of the earth, and the influence of the GHGs.

In science, the falsification of a standard theory, or accepted hypothesis, is just as noted as the positing of a new one. Were there to be serious problems with AGW, we would already know about it, considering the number of researchers now looking at it. As it stands, all the policy statements of virtually all the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities, state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Proof of which you can see right now in the rising food prices.

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

 

[mdn2000]

The only thing to be said is these Liberal Scientist are not Scientist at all, they are simply making a living in a classroom playing with giant computers they did not work for.

Take away the taxpayers checkbook from these parasites.

The debate is over newspaper articles, to me that is a fool's debate.

 

[konradv]

Yes, Brian, the trend has been spreading since Fourier first noted in the 1820s that the earth was too warm considering the incoming radiation, and the albedo of the ground. Then, in 1858, Tyndal measured the absorbtion spectra of the GHGs. And in 1896, Arrhenius stated that the increased CO2 would cause the earth to warm.

As the science got better, Callender, Sues, and now Hansen, furthered the research, along with thousands of other scientists that contibuted data and evidence of the warming of the earth, and the influence of the GHGs.

In science, the falsification of a standard theory, or accepted hypothesis, is just as noted as the positing of a new one. Were there to be serious problems with AGW, we would already know about it, considering the number of researchers now looking at it. As it stands, all the policy statements of virtually all the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities, state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Proof of which you can see right now in the rising food prices.

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

 

[BrianH]

Yes, Brian, the trend has been spreading since Fourier first noted in the 1820s that the earth was too warm considering the incoming radiation, and the albedo of the ground. Then, in 1858, Tyndal measured the absorbtion spectra of the GHGs. And in 1896, Arrhenius stated that the increased CO2 would cause the earth to warm.

As the science got better, Callender, Sues, and now Hansen, furthered the research, along with thousands of other scientists that contibuted data and evidence of the warming of the earth, and the influence of the GHGs.

In science, the falsification of a standard theory, or accepted hypothesis, is just as noted as the positing of a new one. Were there to be serious problems with AGW, we would already know about it, considering the number of researchers now looking at it. As it stands, all the policy statements of virtually all the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities, state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Proof of which you can see right now in the rising food prices.

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

There's a reason it's called a theory and not fact...can YOU prove it??? I have yet to see "scientists" prove it. They "think" based on their "research" that humans are causing it... I'm not saying it should be discarded numnuts. I'm saying that I'm not going to start building my survival bunker until it can be proven without a doubt. If you were a climate scientist, what would you do to stay in business??

 

[code1211]

Yes, Brian, the trend has been spreading since Fourier first noted in the 1820s that the earth was too warm considering the incoming radiation, and the albedo of the ground. Then, in 1858, Tyndal measured the absorbtion spectra of the GHGs. And in 1896, Arrhenius stated that the increased CO2 would cause the earth to warm.

As the science got better, Callender, Sues, and now Hansen, furthered the research, along with thousands of other scientists that contibuted data and evidence of the warming of the earth, and the influence of the GHGs.

In science, the falsification of a standard theory, or accepted hypothesis, is just as noted as the positing of a new one. Were there to be serious problems with AGW, we would already know about it, considering the number of researchers now looking at it. As it stands, all the policy statements of virtually all the scientific societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities, state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Proof of which you can see right now in the rising food prices.

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.