Climategate.com exposed as fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[code1211]

Now wait a minute there Slick!

Deniers claim no one will give them any info, so how can you know if any info was left out or selectively picked???

Deniers are either lying about not being given the data or lying about data being left out, but either way they are lying.

Trust not him that hath once broken faith; he who betrayed thee once, will betray thee again.
- Shakespeare.

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

 

[Xenophon]

So, are we all under water yet?

 

[SFC Ollie]

So, are we all under water yet?

I don't know, are your feet wet? Mine aren't.

 

[Meister]

Dry feet on this end.

 

[Xenophon]

Still not under water yet.

 

[edthecynic]

Not disputing anyone's information or source. It's interesting that dust in the air on Earth causes cooling and dust in the air on Mars causes warming.

Apparently the abilities of dust vary by zip code.

Don't you CON$ think you are milking the dumb act a little bit too much????????????

It's not the dust in the AIR, it's the dust on the GROUND!!!!!!!!
The quote clearly said SURFACE DUST!
How could you have possibly missed it??????????

He needed a 22 year circulation model to calculate the effect of dust that's on the ground? That's an interesting take on his conclusions.

Still milking that dumb act!

Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo. Martian dust plays a major role in the planet's climate (Kahn 1992). Solar variations are not the main driver of Martian climate. Nevertheless, an important question remains: is the interpretation of long term global warming on Mars correct?
A broader view of Martian climate change

To put these results in proper perspective, an understanding of what drives Martian climate is required. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Within a year after a dust storm, various wind systems remove the dust and Mars returns to a normal, lower albedo.
The 1977 snapshot was taken after a global dust storm had deposited dust over the southern latitudes, lightening the planet surface. Before the storm, the planet had albedo comparable to recent measurements (Szwast 2006).
Fenton drew conclusions about long term climate by comparing two end points. This led to the classic error of mistaking weather for climate (similar to the recent global cooling argument). When you look at the broader data, there is no discernable long term trend in albedo:

Figure 2: Comparison of data sampling by Fenton 2007 (left, comparing 2 end points) and the full sample of data (courtesy Mark Richardson).
The apparent long-term warming between the 1970's and 1990's is largely a consequence of the timing of the two snapshots used. The "brighter" 1977 snapshot was immediately after a global dust storm when the planet was temporarily lighter. The "darker" 1999 snapshot was of the planet in it's usual state. There is little evidence that Mars is undergoing decadal-scale, long term global warming. In fact, following the 2001 global dust storm, the southern hemisphere was brighter than in 1977 (Szwast 2006).

 

[edthecynic]

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

Your OPINIONS hardly pass for "science."
I would suggest using scientific data collected from direct instrument measurements.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

Well he did say from direct instrument measurements. For example ...



U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources

A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming may be compromised, as temperature sensors across the U.S. appear to be exposed to heat sources that some critics say is corrupting their information.


For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:

• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.
• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun's heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.

• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.

• A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a "burn barrel" that incinerates garbage.

• A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.

• Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce "heat islands" from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions.

"So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------


See:

Fake Global Warming Update: scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Guardian:

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

 

[edthecynic]

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

Well he did say from direct instrument measurements. For example ...



U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources

A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming may be compromised, as temperature sensors across the U.S. appear to be exposed to heat sources that some critics say is corrupting their information.


For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed

"Some critics" but no real scientists.

Thank you for showing a denier's complete ignorance of why real scientists use ANOMALIES to calculate warming or cooling trends.

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

 

[boedicca]

So, are we all under water yet?

Well, you can ask Chile and Hawaii about that.

Now, wait for Al Gore to blame the earthquake on Glowball Climate Change.

 

[boedicca]

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

According to the CRU, an anomaly is how they can't explain that no warming has occurred since 1995 and how their models can't handle the Medieval Warming Period.

 

[code1211]

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

Well he did say from direct instrument measurements. For example ...



U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors' Proximity to Heat Sources

A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming may be compromised, as temperature sensors across the U.S. appear to be exposed to heat sources that some critics say is corrupting their information.


For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed

"Some critics" but no real scientists.

Thank you for showing a denier's complete ignorance of why real scientists use ANOMALIES to calculate warming or cooling trends.

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

Why do you make a comment on anomalies when the response demands a comment on the legitimacy of the temperature stations? No matter if the goal is an accurate anomaly or an accurate temperature reading, if the data is wrong, it's wrong.

 

[Oddball]

"Some critics" but no real scientists.

Thank you for showing a denier's complete ignorance of why real scientists use ANOMALIES to calculate warming or cooling trends.

Do you even KNOW what an anomaly is?????????

Right...The "real scientists" just make the data up out of thin air, like they did for Russia.

 

[boedicca]

There is a really simple way to resolve this:

The computer models should be published so that computer programmers can review them. From the CRU emails, it sounds like desire results were hard coded. If that's the case (which I believe it is), then they have absolutely no credibility.

 

[code1211]

Don't you CON$ think you are milking the dumb act a little bit too much????????????

It's not the dust in the AIR, it's the dust on the GROUND!!!!!!!!
The quote clearly said SURFACE DUST!
How could you have possibly missed it??????????

He needed a 22 year circulation model to calculate the effect of dust that's on the ground? That's an interesting take on his conclusions.

Still milking that dumb act!

Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo. Martian dust plays a major role in the planet's climate (Kahn 1992). Solar variations are not the main driver of Martian climate. Nevertheless, an important question remains: is the interpretation of long term global warming on Mars correct?
A broader view of Martian climate change

To put these results in proper perspective, an understanding of what drives Martian climate is required. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Within a year after a dust storm, various wind systems remove the dust and Mars returns to a normal, lower albedo.
The 1977 snapshot was taken after a global dust storm had deposited dust over the southern latitudes, lightening the planet surface. Before the storm, the planet had albedo comparable to recent measurements (Szwast 2006).
Fenton drew conclusions about long term climate by comparing two end points. This led to the classic error of mistaking weather for climate (similar to the recent global cooling argument). When you look at the broader data, there is no discernable long term trend in albedo:

Figure 2: Comparison of data sampling by Fenton 2007 (left, comparing 2 end points) and the full sample of data (courtesy Mark Richardson).
The apparent long-term warming between the 1970's and 1990's is largely a consequence of the timing of the two snapshots used. The "brighter" 1977 snapshot was immediately after a global dust storm when the planet was temporarily lighter. The "darker" 1999 snapshot was of the planet in it's usual state. There is little evidence that Mars is undergoing decadal-scale, long term global warming. In fact, following the 2001 global dust storm, the southern hemisphere was brighter than in 1977 (Szwast 2006).

It's gratifying to know that dust acts the same in any zip code.

 

[Oddball]

There is a really simple way to resolve this:

The computer models should be published so that computer programmers can review them. From the CRU emails, it sounds like desire results were hard coded. If that's the case (which I believe it is), then they have absolutely no credibility.

Here are the "HARRY_READ_ME" files: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Let us know what you come up with.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Warming and cooling have both occurred throughout the planetary record. In every example, CO2 has changed as a result of the temperature changing.

During this interglacial, we are enjoying a temperature varience of about 2 degrees and are currently smack dab in the middle of that varience.

It is apparent that it has been at least this warm and the overwhelming body of evidence suggest much warmer, during this interglacial. We are moving in halting steps toward that temperature high which is lower than any of the previous interglacial highs.

This warming is not unprecedented and not unusual.

The warming we are talking about totals 0.7 degrees across 2000 years. That is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. If you'd rather, we can reach back 1000 years and find that warming has produced a 0.3 degree rise to date. 8000 years shows a 1.0 degree fall.

Those are the facts left out by the AGW alarmists and those are the facts that add perspective to this debate. These facts pull the rug out from any urge to panic and that is why they are left out.

It is the AGW Proponents that need to prove their case. Those who doubt their case are not burdened with any onis in this. We only await the proof that never comes.

If you have proof, you are free to present it.

None of your above OPINIONS are proven. Only people who see what they want to see, see temp leading CO2 the same way you saw SURFACE dust as dust in the AIR on Mars.

The only thing you have to base your temp claims on is PROXY data, and proxy data has been shown to be in error where it overlaps direct instrument measurement. Not only that, the proxy data comes from very limited areas of the globe so no global conclusions can be honestly drawn from the very limited data. But that doesn't stop deniers from drawing the conclusions they want in order to muddy the waters.

So instead of using science, what do you suggest?

It appears that it is only the real nutroots that believe global warming err,,,, climate change is real "for sure"

Even that right wing news source Reuters from the GOP hate media has pointed out:

Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.
Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error [i.e., an outrageous lie] in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.


"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. …
British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.



---------------------------------------------------------------------


So you can see , it is only the real nutroots that WANT to believe this is true without all the facts.

Must be part of that "dope and change" thing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has even gotten to the point where shareholders are mocking Gore, the world’s leading junk scientist, at Apple’s annual meeting.

CNET reported:

The presence of one of the world’s pre-eminent environmentalists at Apple’s shareholder meeting Thursday was the subject of much of the morning’s pointed discussion.

As expected, Apple’s attitude on environmental and sustainability issues was one of the main concerns of the stockholders present Thursday, followed closely by the company’s immense pile of cash. But early harsh comments about former Vice President Al Gore’s record set the tone.

Gore was seated in the first row, along with his six fellow board members, in Apple’s Town Hall auditorium as several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising his high-profile views on climate change.

At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder–some would say gadfly–who introduced himself as Shelton Ehrlich, stood at the microphone and urged against Gore’s re-election to the board. Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” Sheldon said, referring to Gore’s views on global warming. “If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn’t need to be re-elected.”

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk[/ame]

 

[Xenophon]

Still not underwater.

 

[Oddball]

Wet hair...It rained today.

 

[Xenophon]

That might be a sign of global warming.