Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

[Buffalo Roam]

BR, your understanding of this issue is equal to your understanding of the Obama birth certificate issue, the Kerry medal issue, and the Bush National Guard issue. You attach yourself to a minor detail as if it should undermine the truly relevant ones, but you just make yourself look stupid.

Yes, such a minor issue as the Milankovitch Cycle, or Solor Minimums, yes they are such irrelevent issues in the Global Warming Debate.

Do you know that we have 100+ deg. swings in our current enviroment, and there is nothing we can do affect them, they are part of the Milankovitch Cycle, and are affected by the Sun Spot Cycles.

 

[James R]

I note that Buffalo Roam is ignoring my challenge to debate the issue of global warming in a Formal Debate.

No substance. All bluff and bluster.

 

[pjdude1219]

the global climate is a system and we are are playing with parts of that system recklessly and heedless of the results of our actions. We are causing the current warming trend by altering CO2 levels and other things. While their are cycles we are altering the span where the cycles take place. it seems to me a lot of the people who are against global warming are the same people who always put the short term profits of corporations ahead of the long term interests of humanity.

 

[Trippy]

Or how about?

CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. However, studies indicate that CO2 is not the cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[8] The explanation for this natural CO2 variation "remains a difficult attribution problem."[8]

8.^ a b Joos, Fortunat; Prentice, I. Colin (2004). "A Paleo-Perspective on Changes in Atmospheric CO2 and Climate" (PDF). The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate, and the Natural World. Scope. 62. Washington D.C.: Island Press. pp. 165–186. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/OUTGOING/publications/joos03scope_proofs.pdf. Retrieved 2008-05-07.


CO2 is not the cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions.

So, now what?

Oh right. The Vostok Ice core.
You mean the Ice Core data that could very well have a systematic error in it?
You understand that at the Vostok site, the bubbles in the ice are up to 6,000 years younger than the Ice itself right?

That's why the most recent CO2 levels in the vostok data set are already 3000 odd years old (I have the full data set sitting on my hard drive incidentally).

The same applies for all ice core samples. The air pockets are in contact with the atmosphere, and mixing occurs with the atmosphere until the air gaps seal are sealed as bubbles, which doesn't happen until the firn-ice transition depth, which is controled, in part, by environmental conditions, including precipitation.

In the case of the Vostok Ice core, it's generally around 4000 years, but can be as much as 6000 years. At Siple station it's 95 years. The Dome Fuji Ice core it's between 1800 years and 4100 years.

 

[Trippy]

JameR, isn't this considered flaming?

And these would be the same points that I would bring up in a debate, questioning Anthropogenic Warming.

Now, if you really read my post, you would see that I do agree that there is Global Warming/Climate Change, there has always been Global Warming/Climate Change, .....It is that I don't see it proven as Anthropogenic, or that we can do anything to effect or affect the cycles.

Right, right.

But didn't James also say to you that all you had to do was say "I accept warming,but question it's cause" and propose a new topic for debate, and he would take you up on that as well?

 

[Trippy]

:roflmao:

From BuffaloRoams own source:

A success of the greenhouse theory, first established in the 19th century (Arrhenius 1896) and of today’s climate models is that both the global warming over the industrial period (Houghton et al. 2001) and the widespread cold conditions of the last glacial maximum (LGM) (Ganopolski et al. 1998; Weaver et al. 1998; Kitoh et al. 2001; Kim et al. 2002; Hewitt et al. 2003; Shin et al. 2003) can be consistently explained by the radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric GHG content and other factors. Detailed comparison of temperature proxies and CO2 during the last glacial-interglacial transition, however, suggests that Antarctic temperature started to rise before atmospheric CO2 (Figure 7.1). This finding is consistent with the view that natural CO2 variations constitute a feedback in the glacial-interglacial cycle rather than a primary cause (Shackleton 2000). Changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are the pacemaker for glacial-interglacial cycles (Hays et al. 1976; Berger 1978), but these rather subtle orbital changes must be amplified by climate feedbacks in order to explain the large differences in global temperature and ice volume, and the relative abruptness of the transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (Berger et al. 1998; Clark et al. 1999).

It is plausible that such biogeochemical and biophysical feedbacks will amplify the direct anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, just as they have amplified orbital changes in the past.

So even BR's own source at least explicitly aknowledges CO[sub]2[/sub] as an important secondary amplifier (meaning it has a positive, not negative influence), while explicitly aknowledging the success of the green house theory as a predictive tool, and the success of climate models. Not to mention the explicit aknowledgment that the observed degree of warming and temperature change would be impossible without the boost of CO[sub]2[/sub]

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, such a minor issue as the Milankovitch Cycle, or Solor Minimums, yes they are such irrelevent issues in the Global Warming Debate.

Do you know that we have 100+ deg. swings in our current enviroment, and there is nothing we can do affect them, they are part of the Milankovitch Cycle, and are affected by the Sun Spot Cycles.

And these backround cycles could be sent into a chaotic state by an unusual input of energy, such as that created by man's extraordinary activities in the last 10,000 years or so. At no time in the past did a creature go from 1% of the biomass to about 98% (including our livestock but not our farms) in less than 1000 years.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

And these backround cycles could be sent into a chaotic state by an unusual input of energy, such as that created by man's extraordinary activities in the last 10,000 years or so. At no time in the past did a creature go from 1% of the biomass to about 98% (including our livestock but not our farms) in less than 1000 years.

100ppm are vast inputs of energy? from 1% of the Bio Mass to 98%?

My friend you have just shown how little you really know about which you are pontificating, now show documentable proof that Man is 98% of the Bio Mass.

But if you can't find it, here are some numbers and citations and sight references, something saddly lacking in your claim;

Humans comprise about 100 million tonnes of the Earth's biomass, domesticated animals about 700 million tonnes, and crops about 2 billion tonnes. The total biomass of bacteria is estimated to equal that of plants. A 2009 paper in Science estimates, for the first time, the total world fish biomass as somewhere between 0.8 and 2.0 billion tonnes.

Humans make up about 100 million tonnes of the earths biomass, Domesticated Anamals adds about 700 million tons...that Equals 800 million tons,

Now crops make up 2 Billion Tons.

The total Biomass of Bacteria equals that of plants.

And a 2009 science paper gives the total Biomass for fish at some were around 1.4 billion tonnes average.

That means that man is nowhere near 98% of the worlds biomass.

The world human population was 6.6 billion in January 2008. At an average weight of 100 pounds (30 lbs of biomass), that equals 100 million tonnes.

Whitman, Coleman, and Wiebe, Prokaryotes: The unseen majority, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 95, pp. 6578–6583, June 1998

Wilson RW, Millero FJ, Taylor JR, Walsh PJ, Christensen V, Jennings S, Grosell M (2009) "Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle" Science, 323 (5912) 359-362.

Researcher gives first-ever estimate of worldwide fish biomass and impact on climate change PhysOrg.com, 15 January 2009.

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6578.full.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5912/359

http://www.physorg.com/news151251277.html

Or how about this my friend?

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/26/14028.full

Ants are arguably the greatest success story in the history of terrestrial metazoa. On average, ants monopolize 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass, and in tropical regions where ants are especially abundant, they monopolize 25% or more.

So much for man being 98% of the worlds biomass.

 

[James R]

This thread doesn't seem to be about the hacking of the Hadley Climate Research Unit any more. Should I close it?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Right, right.

But didn't James also say to you that all you had to do was say "I accept warming,but question it's cause" and propose a new topic for debate, and he would take you up on that as well?

What have you missed about the fact that I have said there has always been global warming? Huh?

Again what I question is the supposition that man is the cause, and from what has come out from the CRU EMails, the destruction of raw data, the refusal to comply with FOIA requests, the fact that the peer review seems to be done only by true believers, and the pure dismissal of such natural and documentable cycles as the Milankovitch Cycles, Sunspot Cycles, The Solar Maximums, and Minimums, as having less effect on the earth's environment than Man, make me question the validity of the research.

Science is not reached by consensus, and as far as consensus nothing could be farther from the truth, there are thousands of reputable scientist who do not ascribe to Anthropogenic Warming.

So again I don't question the fact that global warming has and is taking place, what I question is Anthropogenic Warming, and as far as a debate on this, who is going to decide who's appeal to authority, is the most correct?

I have posted hundreds of site, citation, and reference from reputable scientist from fields that cover Anthropogenic Warming, and none of them believe in Anthropogenic Warming as a proven fact, and many that believe that man has no influence on Global Warming at all.

So exactly what does James want other than to ridicule and pick a fight? over something that He personnel believes in, and has used His authority to lock sites that disagree with His point view?

The only thing that I have really done is question the dogma of Global Warming, which has reached the point of religious fanaticism, and the destruction of nonbelievers through their careers and reputations.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

This thread doesn't seem to be about the hacking of the Hadley Climate Research Unit any more. Should I close it?

Why? your the one who changed the focus of the thread?

 

[James R]

Buffalo Roam:

So again I don't question the fact that global warming has and is taking place, what I question is Anthropogenic Warming, and as far as a debate on this, who is going to decide who's appeal to authority, is the most correct?

The general membership.

I note for the record that you agree that global warming is currently occurring. Please confirm that this is what you believe, and I will modify my current debate proposal.

So exactly what does James want other than to ridicule and pick a fight?

My point is that your "thousands of scientists" (most of whom are not climatologists) and your thousands of internet climate-denier sites are all wrong. Want to take me on?

...over something that He personnel believes in, and has used His authority to lock sites that disagree with His point view?

I have directly addressed your accusation that I would tamper dishonestly with your words of wisdom in any debate in the Formal Debate Proposal thread. You have ignored all my posts in that thread. Why?

My provisional answer: you are a dishonest coward.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The raw data is, on the whole, publically available to anybody who wishes to analyse it.

Why don't climate deniers ever present their own analyses and show the flaws in the conclusions of 95%+ of climate scientists?

Why are climate deniers almost invariably not qualified in climate science?

Please provide the URL addresses.

 

[James R]

There's no need, since you agree that global warming is occurring, do you not, BR?

We're in agreement, so far. Please address post #212, and the posts in my Formal Debate Proposal thread.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

There's no need, since you agree that global warming is occurring, do you not, BR?

We're in agreement, so far. Please address post #212, and the posts in my Formal Debate Proposal thread.

Yes, there is a need as it has been deleted by the CRU, and I have pointed that out, and you say it is available, now on which sights from the CRU is the raw data available?

Oh I forgot, they admit to destroying that data......and with out it a proper peer review is impossible.

 

[joepistole]

I think it is time to close the thread. It has gone off topic and all I can see now is chaff being thrown around. So there is really no point going forward with the thread.