Climate Corruption $$$$$

[code1211]

I see. The so called corruption by the 'top climate dudes' is warming the ice caps and melting the glaciers?

The evidence for the warming can be seen in every scientific study of the earth. At the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco on Dec. 15, many of the presentations were dealing with the observed effects of the warming. And the causes of such warmings in the past, the relationship of CO2 to those warmings.

For you politically driven trolls, no amount of science will make you face reality. For the rest of us, here is a very good site where you can access those lectures;

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Lectures, Union Sessions & Webcasts

I don't dispute the warming today nor do I dispute the warming that ended about 4 to 3000 years ago when many of today's melting glaciers started to freeze. The cooling that starrted 8000 years ago was caused by what?

What I do dispute is the cause of the warming that you cite today. What was the cause of the cooling then?

Was there a successful IPCC administered by Phillip of Macedonia?

Let us see. We are in a current solar minimum. We just came out of a strong and persistant La Nina. Yet the past decade is the warmest on record. How does that square with cooling?

There has been no cooling. Just lies from people like yourself.

Not just from people like me. The same "lies" come from GISS and HadCrut3. If you bother to review the link below, you find the tempertures actually observed have cooled. The temperatures in the models have increased. I will admit to feeling warmer when looking at models myself.

In the echo chamber of the world of climate modeling, everyone agrees that warming continues while, in the world outside of their computers, the world cools.

I've said this before. It's like a Star Trek Convention where in everyone knows absolutely everything there is to know about something that doesn't exist in the real world.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/recenttrends.jpg

 

[Sodafin]

Code -

I think you may be relying on some poor sources. Where do see cooling happening here?

This is not a model - this is based on solid, recorded data from the UK Met Office:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

 

[Sodafin]

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

And you use this article from BBC to back up your authority's truthiness which has the first line of:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

These organizations ALL have been compromised by Hansen, Mann and the Hadley CRU fraud. That's who supplied their data and computer models which have now been shown to be DELIBERATELY MISLEADING IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE THE LIE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Therefore NONE of this data is trustworthy.

Try again.

Firstly - no the data quite obviously has nothing at all to do with the scientists you mention. Which I assume you knew to begin with and were just using as a dodge. The data is from the Met Office's own offices.

Secondly - please read the report before attacking it. There is no contradiction at all in the statements you have highlighted.

Honestly - is this seriously the best you can offer?

Read the damn report. Comment on it.

How hard is that?

 

[code1211]

Let's look at some facts:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

I see your link and raise you mine.

The whole basis of the AGW idea is that CO2 increases warming and that more CO2 will cause larger and faster increases. We have as much now as we've ever had and the warming is stalled. It has stalled where it was when the stall occurred which was very high, but it has stalled.

The linked article contains a pretty well researched article on the ocean's lack of warming and the data that is currently being re-calibrated by the intelligencia to show that warming has occurred based on data showing that cooling has occurred. Curiouser and curiouser.

Anyway, there is a large enough lack of certainty to promote a healthy skepticism. A lack of skepticism in the face of the lack of proof raises questions for me.

Here's the link:

The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?

Watts gets swatted
Category: Environment
Posted on: July 31, 2009 4:29 PM, by PZ Myers

That crank pseudoscience site, Watt's Up With That, got thoroughly reamed out with the video below (just the fact that the chief crackpot, Anthony Watts, would show up on Glenn Beck's show is indictment enough, though). Watt was not too happy with his public evisceration, however, and scurried off to get it taken down. Here it is, reposted. Enjoy — it's a very good takedown of the climate denialist claims.
Watts gets swatted : Pharyngula

Well, I listened to and watched your little video. Interesting.

There is allot fo talk about warming and no talk at all about the causal link between CO2 and Warming although it is accepted as a fact by the narrator.

In the body of the presetation, there are some interesting observations:

In discussing the placement of the ground stations, the narrator quotes a letter of response from NOAA saying, "some... does not confrom to published standards...".

In discussing the accuracy of the reaqdings from these stations, the letter says, "...temperature readings might be affected...".

In discussing the the handling of the data in view of the fact that they know the data is corrupted, the letter from NOAA says, "... adjustments are made to compensate for deficiencies...".

To show that there is absolutely no effect on the data collected from sites that do not conform to published standards producing data from readings that might be affected and is therefore adjusted to compensate for deficiencies, NOAA provided a graph demonstrating that, the collected, affected, adjusted to compensate data from all sites compared to the collected, affected, adjusted to compensate data from only the stations that Watts approved, are different, but pretty similar.

Alrighty, then!

Do you think they are using the GISS info which was adjusted in 1999 or the GISS info which was different and recently cooler but was adjusted warmer? Do you wonder why the data adjusted upon collection is adjusted again after decades?

It's odd, isn't it, that the raw data was unchanged and yet the data already adjusted to compensate for deficiencies was again adjusted warmer in spite of the various factors that one might suppose would already have skewed the reading higher.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's odd, isn't it, that the raw data was unchanged and yet the data already adjusted to compensate for deficiencies was again adjusted warmer in spite of the various factors that one might suppose would already have skewed the reading higher.

Curiouser and curiouser.

It's not odd, or curious.

It's fraud.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Merely pointing out that the Globe is warming does not isolate the cause and the cause is at the root of the discussion. If the cause is man-made, then man can un-make it and correct the problem.

If the cause is not man-made, than efforts by man to affect it are pointless.

Actually by the IPCC's own numbers, we cannot affect it much at all. They belie their own argument, smash their own theory.

 

[code1211]

Code -

I think you may be relying on some poor sources. Where do see cooling happening here?

This is not a model - this is based on solid, recorded data from the UK Met Office:

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

The data sets are not in disagreement, they are merely over time spans. This decade is warm. Temperature has stalled at a warm point and, between 2001 and 2009, cooled a little.

The link below, reposted from the post earlier, shows that virtually every model in use showed warming while real world data from GISS and HadCru3 show a temperature decline for the period.

The point to which the temperature has risen puts us almost dead center in a roughly 2 degree range of varience established over the last 8000 years. This is a point 0.7 degrees warmer than 2000 years ago and a point 1 degree cooler than 8000 years ago.

Do you remember the Ice Man discovered as a glacier melted revealing him in almost perfectly preserved condition complete with wardrobe and axe leaned against a rock nearby? He was seated on the ground, not on the ice.

The Glacier had formed over him, freezing him and preserving him, and there was no evidence that scavengers got the chance to take a turn with him.

We know that the glacier had been there for some time, but had melted in current times. We further know that the glacier was not there when poor old Otsi originally sat down to die as he was on the ground, half buried by the ice, when discovered.

We have apparently RETURNED to the climate prevalent before this poor guy froze to death in a blizzard that buried him and his way of life. As AGW Proponents are fond of doing, let's examine what nature is doing, has done, to determine if there is cause for panic.

The first link is from the previous post and the second is from satelite readings; both are for the recent 8 years to date. The third link is from the RSS satelite record of anamoly since launch. RSS, UAH and GISS records are all very similar when overlayed comparing only the relative changes and ignoring the starting/ending points.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/recenttrends.jpg

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/rss_jan2001_june2009.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/rss-may-2009.png

 

[Big Fitz]

Read the damn report. Comment on it.

I did. I'm sorry you don't like the analysis. Start over, try again.

 

[concept]

I'd like to see the raw data.

Oh wait, they threw that out didn't they?

 

[Sinatra]

I'd like to see the raw data.

Oh wait, they threw that out didn't they?

Why yes, yes they did...

 

[FactFinder]

Getting back to the theme of the thread:

Monday, July 20, 2009
Goldman Sachs and the coming carbon credit bubble

Kirby Mountain: Goldman Sachs and the coming carbon credit bubble

Cooking up carbon credits

JPMorgan jumps into carbon trading - Aug. 12, 2008

Hedge Fund Message Board .com
Hedge Fund's Carbon Play... - Hedge Fund Message Board .com

 

[FactFinder]

As for the recent warming....It is the sun stupid.

Solar activity was at record levels during the recent warming period. Now the sun is waning with a solar minimum. See SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids.

Now some will claim that 2009 is the fifth warmest on record. One has only to think about a superheated object and how long it takes to cool to find the logical answer to that.

So don't be fooled by the farce.

Yes we have had some of the warmest years on record, but the record does not go back that far and we just left an amazingly active sunspot cycle.

Hope I didn't leave anyone in a void of religiousity.

 

[Sodafin]

Read the damn report. Comment on it.

I did. I'm sorry you don't like the analysis.

You provided no analysis.

You made an entirely off-topic comment about scientists who had nothing whatsoever to do with the report, and that was it.

Come on - either debate the subject intelligently, or just leave it.

 

[Sodafin]

The data sets are not in disagreement, they are merely over time spans. This decade is warm. Temperature has stalled at a warm point and, between 2001 and 2009, cooled a little.

The link below, reposted from the post earlier, shows that virtually every model in use showed warming while real world data from GISS and HadCru3 show a temperature decline for the period.

The point to which the temperature has risen puts us almost dead center in a roughly 2 degree range of varience established over the last 8000 years. This is a point 0.7 degrees warmer than 2000 years ago and a point 1 degree cooler than 8000 years ago.

Do you remember the Ice Man discovered as a glacier melted revealing him in almost perfectly preserved condition complete with wardrobe and axe leaned against a rock nearby? He was seated on the ground, not on the ice.

The Glacier had formed over him, freezing him and preserving him, and there was no evidence that scavengers got the chance to take a turn with him.

We know that the glacier had been there for some time, but had melted in current times. We further know that the glacier was not there when poor old Otsi originally sat down to die as he was on the ground, half buried by the ice, when discovered.

We have apparently RETURNED to the climate prevalent before this poor guy froze to death in a blizzard that buried him and his way of life. As AGW Proponents are fond of doing, let's examine what nature is doing, has done, to determine if there is cause for panic.

Thank you for an intelligent and insightful approach - I really wish the quality of all posting on this subject was as good as this.

I agree that the various sets of data do largely agree - and that we should be able to draw basic conclusions as a result.

One issue which I think needs to be taken into consideration is not only the extent of the change in mean temperatures - but the pace at which that change has taken place, and I think it is here that it becomes difficult to explain away the changes as being natural.

The data on Alaska glaciers shows warming between 1950 and 1990 as being relatively steady - but then quite suddenly doubling in pace. This research is reflected in similar studies conducted in New Zealand, France, Spain and South America - all of whom have seen catastrophic collapses in glaciers taking place since 1990.

This text from BBC is useful here, I think:

There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect". Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Sinatra, Concept -

The original data used by the UK Met Office is available on their website, and has not been thrown out. The data is from their own field offices, and I've yet to hear anyone question their methodology. Rather than just flail away, please try and actually stick to facts - not what you wish would happen.

I challenge you to research the issue, and then consider the reports conclusions.

 

[code1211]

The data sets are not in disagreement, they are merely over time spans. This decade is warm. Temperature has stalled at a warm point and, between 2001 and 2009, cooled a little.

The link below, reposted from the post earlier, shows that virtually every model in use showed warming while real world data from GISS and HadCru3 show a temperature decline for the period.

The point to which the temperature has risen puts us almost dead center in a roughly 2 degree range of varience established over the last 8000 years. This is a point 0.7 degrees warmer than 2000 years ago and a point 1 degree cooler than 8000 years ago.

Do you remember the Ice Man discovered as a glacier melted revealing him in almost perfectly preserved condition complete with wardrobe and axe leaned against a rock nearby? He was seated on the ground, not on the ice.

The Glacier had formed over him, freezing him and preserving him, and there was no evidence that scavengers got the chance to take a turn with him.

We know that the glacier had been there for some time, but had melted in current times. We further know that the glacier was not there when poor old Otsi originally sat down to die as he was on the ground, half buried by the ice, when discovered.

We have apparently RETURNED to the climate prevalent before this poor guy froze to death in a blizzard that buried him and his way of life. As AGW Proponents are fond of doing, let's examine what nature is doing, has done, to determine if there is cause for panic.

Thank you for an intelligent and insightful approach - I really wish the quality of all posting on this subject was as good as this.

I agree that the various sets of data do largely agree - and that we should be able to draw basic conclusions as a result.

One issue which I think needs to be taken into consideration is not only the extent of the change in mean temperatures - but the pace at which that change has taken place, and I think it is here that it becomes difficult to explain away the changes as being natural.

The data on Alaska glaciers shows warming between 1950 and 1990 as being relatively steady - but then quite suddenly doubling in pace. This research is reflected in similar studies conducted in New Zealand, France, Spain and South America - all of whom have seen catastrophic collapses in glaciers taking place since 1990.

This text from BBC is useful here, I think:

There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect". Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | 629 | 629 | Climate scepticism: The top 10

Sinatra, Concept -

The original data used by the UK Met Office is available on their website, and has not been thrown out. The data is from their own field offices, and I've yet to hear anyone question their methodology. Rather than just flail away, please try and actually stick to facts - not what you wish would happen.

I challenge you to research the issue, and then consider the reports conclusions.

As far as the quality of posting goes, generally, I don't have this kind of time, but I had to either use or lose vacation time during this month and have had some time to think. But thank you both for this comment and for your thoughtful reply and previous posts.

Evidence for past temperature is what it is. Some of the proxies seems to be fairly reflective of what actually happened and other of them fairly reflective of a chosen outcome the researchers were asked to find. Examples of this are recently famous.

The Otsi Ice Man seems to show a very fast change in temperature as he sat on ground, was covered by snow and remained covered by that snow then ice for centuries. No scavenger evidence on the corpse shows that no scavengers got to him before the hard freeze occurred and no subsequent damage shows that he stayed under the ice constantly in the interim.

In the early Renaissance, every artist that was worth his salt climbed a hill to paint the beautiful image of his village with roofs covered in show. It was unusual. Like snow in Dallas on Christmas. Or in Baghdad any time. Or 4 inches in Copenhagen in Early December.

In 1986, I was traveling allot and in January in Ohio, it surprised me that there was very little snow on the prairie areas as I drove from one location to another. In Wisconsin, where I lived at the time, there was plenty of snow. In this area of the world, there is a scallop of cold that comes out of Canada and covers the land in a semi circle that seems to have the center of radius in North Dakota and covers the upper Mid West.

Anyway, today I live in Indiana and the snow cover seems about equal to what I remember from Ohio those decades ago. I understand that there are plants and bugs moving north that have never been in this area before, but I moved south so I had never been in this area before, either. We probably annoy each other. With Orkin's help, I intend to annoy them more.

Climate change is a geologically slow thing, or maybe not. Maybe all of the changes are quick. Certainly the change for Otsi was. The Snow on the rooftops was. Tree rings show us two things: First, they show if the conditions changed and are reflected in tree rings. Second, if the tree is old, the conditions to grow that tree have remained favorable for a good long time.

Where there were trees which are no longer there, maybe they died all at once as the bark beetle stopped dying in winter and was able to lay eggs that produce larvae that eat the seeds. That's life. Literally.

The evidence of warming is all around us and I personally have had better times in warm sand than cold snow, but that's just me.

The case that AGW Proponents need to prove is that in this instance of warming, for the first time in history, this warming, that is well within a set limit of varience over the last 8000 years, is actually caused by CO2. They need to prove both that it is caused by CO2 and that it would not have happened if the CO2 was not increasing.

It would be helpful to their case if they could actually quantify the effect of CO2 and make an accurate prediction of future climate that can be reviewed and found to be accurate in the fullness of time. It would also be helpful if the warming did not pre-date the Industrial Revolution, but that ship, the Mayflower, has already sailed.

Incidentally, the warming of the 1000 years ended in 1000 AD was quicker thant the warming for the 1000 years ended in 2000 AD. .4 degrees vs. .3 degrees respectively.

The fast warming of today which you mention was the second instance of quick climate change in the last millenium. The first, of course, was the Little Ice Age. The only recent examples we have of climate change seem to indicate a pretty quick turn around.

Is it justified to suppose that the sudden warming of today is both unusual and man-made when we see that there was an opposite and equally sudden change in climate direction that ended only 400 years ago?

Entire human lives are a single tick on a stop watch to a glacier. Our lives end pretty suddenly. One second we breath and the next, we do not. Perhaps the lives of glaciers, which are born suddenly and bury Otsi, also end suddenly and reveal Otsi just like ours.

Our understanding changes and maybe we are just witnessing things right now that will change our understanding.

 

[Sodafin]

Interesting comments again.

The impression I get from what I have read is that the reason why our current warming is considered unique is two fold.

Firstly, the change now is global. With all due respect to Otsi man, it may well be that the freezing he experienced occurred only within a thousand mile radius of where he was sitting. In which case influences like sun spots or volcanic activity may well have played a part.

Whereas 99% of the worlds glaciers are now in retreat, a pattern reflected on every continent which has glaciers.

Secondly, it is this pace of change, and the acceleration shown this century. While things may he changing no faster now than what Otsi man experienced, it is this combination of pace, acceleration and global extent which experts suggest is unique this time around.

 

[code1211]

Interesting comments again.

The impression I get from what I have read is that the reason why our current warming is considered unique is two fold.

Firstly, the change now is global. With all due respect to Otsi man, it may well be that the freezing he experienced occurred only within a thousand mile radius of where he was sitting. In which case influences like sun spots or volcanic activity may well have played a part.

Whereas 99% of the worlds glaciers are now in retreat, a pattern reflected on every continent which has glaciers.

Secondly, it is this pace of change, and the acceleration shown this century. While things may he changing no faster now than what Otsi man experienced, it is this combination of pace, acceleration and global extent which experts suggest is unique this time around.

To the first point, if the freezing occurred only within a 1000 mile radius of where he sat, this would indicte that previous to that point in time, there had been isolated warming. In view of the fact that the glacier under which he was mummified was one of the "99%" that are now in retreat, it seems just as, if not more, reasonable to assume that this glacier was like most on the planet.

Since it behaves as the others on the planet behave today, assuming that it behaved as others on the planet behaved in the past seems reasonable. I would think that assuming that it used to follow behavior unique to it among glaciers when it now follows the common trend would require some unusual and specific proof. Is there any proof to this end?

To the second point: The acceleration seems to be common in temperature change. Ice melting to water stalls at freezing while the change takes place. The absorption of the BTU's is constant while the change is underway. Temperature is not everything. It is one measure, though.

While this might be cause for concern, the debate must center on proving the causal link between the rise of CO2 and the following rise of temperature. That is the basis of the whole argument for AGW. Without demonstrating that causal link, there is no proof and no basis for any of the "remedies". After literally billions of dollars spent in pursuit of the effort to do so, there still is no causal link produced by those who claim it to be obvious.

If it is obvious it should be, well, obvious.

Below is a link showing the guesstimated proxy temperatures during the Halocene Period. The temperature peak of this record was 8000 years ago and was much warmer then now using the proxies to date. Checking the various rises and falls across the record, there are many that are dramatic. As dramatic as the current change.

The use of instruments allows for more precise measurements and can provide the illusion of something special occurring in our current time, but that seems unlikely to me. I could be wrong.

The outgassing of the CO2 from the thawing perma frost of Siberia is an interesting example. This outgassing is the result of sequestered CO2 thawing. How did it get there? Obviously, something grew there and just as obviously, it was warmer when it grew. Why is this never highlighted by AGW proponents? Why is this not obvious when they see the undemonstrated causal link between CO2 and Warming as obvious?

Am I not understanding the meaning of obvious?

Why is the comparitive cold that created the perma frost after these things grew then died not cited as a recent problem that is being corrected?

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[skookerasbil]

Leaked e-mail shows how GE puts the government to work for GE


Leaked e-mail shows how GE puts the government to work for GE | Washington Examiner
















message to the true believer religion...................................

Ooooooooooooooops !!!!!