Climate-gate

[Grumpy]

Photizo

You are aware that the Telegraph is a Right Wing rag not fit to wrap fish, aren't you? Climate Denial is idiocy.

Grumpy

 

[Anew]

the idea of their being more than one sun in the great beauty of the nonviolent cosmos may be true.
I then go to think of summer lifeguards being similar to the English watchers of big ben.
I then go to think of young persons school and how such structure is similar to the changing of the guards.

I have noticed much cooler weather this year, perhaps the warming is an impesion of a coming cooling.

The human so called race has been at a quickening of much pardigmnal shift.

The state of adult tawdry is no longer very acceptable to the nonviolent world.

it was written that Jesus said "forgive them for they do not know, this was long ago

awareness of nonviolence
not threatening vitality
or challenging others

is the shift

 

[Photizo]

Photizo

You are aware that the Telegraph is a Right Wing rag not fit to wrap fish, aren't you? Climate Denial is idiocy.

Grumpy

:zzz:

What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? :thumbsup:

 

[origin]

:zzz:

What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? :thumbsup:

My guess is that it means you are on a farm possibly inside a barn.

 

[rpenner]

What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

Precisely my thoughts when non-climate scientists try to criticize climate science they don't understand or mathless people try to criticize physics models they don't understand. They use words, but fail to connect with the topic of discussion but rather only a straw man of the real thing. So their posts or blogs contribute nothing to the discussion and might as well be the noises of animals.

But Samuel was criticizing the evidence of King Saul's enrichment of himself by disobedience of God's command in 1 Samuel 15. He wasn't complaining about the reasoning of his opponents.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Samuel 15&version=NIV

So you have quoted the bible unfairly. Thus which character in this story are you more like?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_gospels/satan_tempts_jesus/mt04_01.html

 

[Aqueous Id]

My guess is that it means you are on a farm possibly inside a barn.

Without any news of the outside world. And no updates to their grammar since the 17th c or so.

Precisely my thoughts when non-climate scientists try to criticize climate science they don't understand or mathless people try to criticize physics models they don't understand. They use words, but fail to connect with the topic of discussion but rather only a straw man of the real thing. So their posts or blogs contribute nothing to the discussion and might as well be the noises of animals.

This thread was dormant for quite a while. Within a span of an hour or so several threads popped up with Climate-gate banter. I wonder what's behind it. Do they get emails from their evangelical sites advising them to deploy in the science boards - Manchurian candidates of the blog/posting kind? Some of the recent news has been the backlash against the Healthcare law. I wonder if this is connected to that...?

 

[rpenner]

The IPCC approved its draft of the AR5 WG I report today. http://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_calendar_template.php?wg=8

Before the draft was approved the last remnants of the denial network sprung into action.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformation-blitz-IPCC-2013.html

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aha. I didn't even click Photizo's link when I saw it was the Telegraph, or I would have made the connection.


Yeah your source is outstanding. It completely trounces the nuts.

 

[wellwisher]

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

An interesting observation is the ice at the arctic circle is growing again.

 

[rpenner]

These are not photos, no clouds. So this is not a case of seeing is believing but rather a vivid (and perhaps misleadingly vivid) presentation of data.
August is a month of steeply declining arctic ice extant. So if they are comparing early and late August this comparison is unfair. Exact dates would be nice. The caption for the first picture says it shows the ice extent "at the smallest extent on record" which is September 16, 2012. Comparing "smallest extent per year" from 2013 versus 2012 is only a 50% increase. A better summary of 2013 would be:

At all times from Jan 1 to Sep 16, 2013 the arctic ice extent was higher than the corresponding date in 2012 but below the average 1981-2010. During most of the year the 2013 ice extent was between 1 and 2 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png​

Climate is distinct from weather and if one looks at one data point one isn't making an argument about climate.
And with respect to Ice Volume, 2013 had at times less ice than the same date in 2012 and lost less mass May 15 - August 15 than the same period in 2012. But for the great majority of the time the Ice Volume was 2 or more standard deviations below the 1979-2012 average. Combined with the extent data this suggests that the 2013 ice is averaging thinner than on the corresponding dates in 2012.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Finally, increasing 60% from the "smallest extent on record" is a single data point and not indicative of a climate trend in that it reflects no global climate model. If 60% year-over-year growth continued for just 11 years it would result in all Earth covered in arctic ice.

 

[Photizo]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nce-Leans-Against-Human-Caused-Global-Warming


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...hange-Report-Ignores-15-Year-Pause-in-Warming

 

[Capracus]

Even with a 60% increase over last year’s record low,

Arctic sea ice shrinks to sixth-lowest extent on record
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-record-low

 

[Aqueous Id]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nce-Leans-Against-Human-Caused-Global-Warming


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...hange-Report-Ignores-15-Year-Pause-in-Warming

The hallmark of the fundamentalist anti-global warming campaign is to find one or two nuts and prop them up to justify the religious view that Earth was put here for people to exploit at their leisure. The other side of that mentality is the protection of corporate interests which benefit from deregulation and "free markets" (meaning unregulated) which comports with trickle-down Reaganomics and presumably makes the minions of fundamentalism wealthy. How's that working for you folks so far?

Greed is a motive but not the only one. Denialism is a kind of self-motivation, one which drives the kid to shoot spit wads in science class rather than to pay attention and actually focus on self-improvement. It's a psychological disorder, part of a complex. For the nut who never got anywhere and has nothing to show for goofing off in school, there is a strong sense of allegiance to the greedy fat cats and their agenda for self-enrichment even though he chews tobacco, lives in a run down house and drives a rattletrap old truck. In this case he identifies with fat cat greed since it manifests within him as envy. He'd like to have that Bentley or that Learjet. It's his idea of perfection. He blocks out all the evidence that envy is a consequence of low self esteem, which gets back to why he's still shooting spit wads in class after all these years. Rather than glorify knowledge and the benefits of an education he prefers to snipe at it, still bruised after his dismal failure back in school. So where does he go to shore up his damaged ego? To any source of like-minded people: the Republican party. The Tories. The Right Wing, by whatever name it lives throughout the world.

Enter one Siegfried Fred Singer, offbeat engineer, scientist and academician, who probably is more of a narcissist than a product of the damage in our Little Man. Singer is notoriously full of himself and obviously did quite well in school. You would think Little Man would be putting thumb tacks on Dr. Singer's chair but in fact these two have formed an alliance. Singer has helped create the mirage we call Psuedoscience. The anti-science misanthropes - the other lazy kids in class, who came armed with slingshots - the ones who brought us the vacuous Institute for Creation Research - are so glad to count Dr Singer as one of scholars who supports the glorification of ignorance. He joins the ratpack of dentists, geographers and PhDs in humanities who ICR often cites as their authorities for the pseudoscience articles they churn out.

As more evidence of his narcissism, Singer obviously doesn't like to be corrected when he's wrong. Instead he has decided that peer review is invalid, and he set out to create his own forum for publishing pseudoscience even though he should know better. But we're talking about pathological traits (narcissism, greed, envy, low self-esteem) and in the pathological mind people do bad things quite predictably. Singer's disinformation club was known as SEPP, and one of its tentacles is the anti-IPCC club which calls itself NIPCC. That's the source you picked, Photizo.

Come on, man, this is a science forum. At least give us some science, something with meat on the bone. Here's a little snapshot of your buddy Singer:

Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon.[3] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[58] Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[3] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[3]

Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.

I could go on but you get the picture. This is who you want the readers to think is a reliable source? This is the problem with fundamentalism. It just can't cope with any real science whatsoever. So why even bother posting on a science forum? :shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

Even with a 60% increase over last year’s record low,

Arctic sea ice shrinks to sixth-lowest extent on record
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-record-low

OMG the satellites are LYING !!!

 

[milkweed]

The hallmark of the fundamentalist anti-global warming campaign is to find one or two nuts and prop them up to justify the religious view that Earth was put here for people to exploit at their leisure.

And how do you address the content of the article? Attacking one of the authors is not a rebuttal of the claim(s).

I am skeptical of the lofty claims of the IPCC and its not because of religion or politics. I donate my data and time to various science efforts related to wildlife primarily documenting specie presence/population numbers for wisconsin and some minnesota. The point being I am not anti-enviroment.

She said some of the stumps were as old as 2,350 years old, while other dated between 1,200 to 1,400, and 1,870 to 2,000 years old.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blo...thaws-revealing-ancient-forest/9851379801832/

That is 3 different prolonged retreats of the above glacier. These are stumps not seedlings. This is going on all over the n. hemisphere. In europe they are finding old trade routes as melting glaciers reveal what the area looked like in the not so long ago past. In the USA they are frantically trying to gather the artifacts being found all over the Rockies showing people once hunted animals in these places the melting has revealed.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

The IPCC role is what has ruined the science. Their role is not about evidence of past climate; what good will it do them to discover these fluctuations are normal in the long term? Simply put, its not their mandate to show climate, the mandate is to find Anthropogenic Climate change. Apply the same skepticism towards these political appointees that you apply towards the skeptics. Follow the government grant monies as equally as you do the allegations of oil money. Truly ask yourself just how much Pachuri/Gore/CRU/Mann/Hansen et al. have to lose if AGW, specifically co2 is a minor issue.

 

[Photizo]

The IPCC role is what has ruined the science.

Exactly. Liars... Phake, Foney, Phrauds. The lot of them.

 

[billvon]

Follow the government grant monies as equally as you do the allegations of oil money. Truly ask yourself just how much Pachuri/Gore/CRU/Mann/Hansen et al. have to lose if AGW, specifically co2 is a minor issue.

Compare the amount of money spent on climate change research to the amount of money fossil fuel companies make. You will find several orders of magnitude difference.

 

[rpenner]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blo...thaws-revealing-ancient-forest/9851379801832/

That is 3 different prolonged retreats of the above glacier. These are stumps not seedlings.

Ah, your point is that a full grown forest was covered by the glacier's advance roughly 2000 years ago therefore from this regional single datapoint you question if today's rates of global climate change are really unprecedented and that the heat is really as extreme as claimed. Well in order to do that, one would have to see what the IPCC claims in WG I, AR5.

From the Executive Summary of Sept 27, we have

the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely [defined as 66–100%] the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
...
Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence).

Not until the bottom of section B.5 do we address a period before 600 AD.

There is very high confidence that maximum global mean sea level during the last interglacial period (129,000 to 116,000 years ago) was, for several thousand years, at least 5 m higher than present and high confidence that it did not exceed 10 m above present. During the last interglacial period, the Greenland ice sheet very likely contributed between 1.4 and 4.3 m to the higher global mean sea level, implying with medium confidence an additional contribution from the Antarctic ice sheet. This change in sea level occurred in the context of different orbital forcing and with high-latitude surface temperature, averaged over several thousand years, at least 2°C warmer than present (high confidence).

But this leaves the period from 114,000 BC to 600 AD undescribed in this report. So what exactly does your Alaskan glacier demonstrate the IPCC doing wrong? Nothing.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

A single glacier is not evidence that the science on global climate reconstruction is wrong when it doesn't even contradict the claims made by the science. Many factors influence how glaciers advance and retreat. To illustrate that point, here is a paragraph from section 6.6.1.1 of the WG I full report for AR4.

Oerlemans (2005) constructed a temperature history for the globe based on 169 glacier length records. He used simplified glacier dynamics that incorporate specific response time and climate sensitivity estimates for each glacier. The reconstruction suggests that moderate global warming occurred after the middle of the 19th century, with about 0.6°C warming by the middle of the 20th century. Following a 25-year cooling, temperatures rose again after 1970, though much regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed on this overall interpretation. However, this approach does not allow for changing glacier sensitivity over time, which may limit the information before 1900. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes and length variations along with temperature records in the western European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) indicate that between 1760 and 1830, glacier advance was driven by precipitation that was 25% above the 20th century average, while there was little difference in average temperatures. Glacier retreat after 1830 was related to reduced winter precipitation and the influence of summer warming only became effective at the beginning of the 20th century. In southern Norway, early 18th-century glacier advances can be attributed to increased winter precipitation rather than cold temperatures (Nesje and Dahl, 2003).

This is going on all over the n. hemisphere. In europe they are finding old trade routes as melting glaciers reveal what the area looked like in the not so long ago past.

How long ago?

In the USA they are frantically trying to gather the artifacts being found all over the Rockies showing people once hunted animals in these places the melting has revealed.

Who is "they?"

 

[Aqueous Id]

And how do you address the content of the article? Attacking one of the authors is not a rebuttal of the claim(s).

Singer isn't just one of the authors. He's the chief instigator. He's a smart guy with a lot of really bad ideas who has done a lot of dumb things. They put him at the top of their list for a reason. And let's face it. Some small percentage of educated people who would/could/should have known better do also espouse fundamentalism/social conservatism and are being propped up by Big Money.

I am skeptical of the lofty claims of the IPCC

Then forget them and just look at NOAA for the data and NASA for the imagery.

and its not because of religion or politics.

Without fundamentalism and Republicans this whole discussion would be moot.

I donate my data and time to various science efforts related to wildlife primarily documenting specie presence/population numbers for wisconsin and some minnesota. The point being I am not anti-enviroment.

Excellent!

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blo...thaws-revealing-ancient-forest/9851379801832/
That is 3 different prolonged retreats of the above glacier. These are stumps not seedlings. This is going on all over the n. hemisphere. In europe they are finding old trade routes as melting glaciers reveal what the area looked like in the not so long ago past. In the USA they are frantically trying to gather the artifacts being found all over the Rockies showing people once hunted animals in these places the melting has revealed.

I'm familiar with some of the news coming out of the Rockies, and of course mammoths in the Northwest and the "Iceman" found in the Alps. But you also know from imagery and live video feeds that ice is shrinking.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
The IPCC role is what has ruined the science.

I disagree since the important data is at NOAA. It's unaffected by this -- it speaks for itself.

Their role is not about evidence of past climate; what good will it do them to discover these fluctuations are normal in the long term?

Not sure what you mean. The primary correlation is between CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations and average temperature rise.

Simply put, its not their mandate to show climate, the mandate is to find Anthropogenic Climate change.

The data says that, not any one person or group.

Apply the same skepticism towards these political appointees that you apply towards the skeptics.

I'm not cynical about scientific expertise. I'm cynical about people who are cynical about scientific expertise. There is nothing magic about climate science that distinguishes it from any other earth science. To claim that it's broken is to claim that all of science is broken. And that's simply ludicrous.

Follow the government grant monies as equally as you do the allegations of oil money.

Not sure how any of that applies here. NOAA is a funded agency, as is NASA. These are our two primary sources of data.

Truly ask yourself just how much Pachuri/Gore/CRU/Mann/Hansen et al. have to lose if AGW, specifically co2 is a minor issue.

Again, that doesn't change the data. Those people were learning to walk when the stations were already showing these trends.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Exactly. Liars... Phake, Foney, Phrauds. The lot of them.

Oh sure. Everything's fine.

Get off the gas, dude.