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

[iceaura]

If the emails are genuine, they show “dubious practices” such as manipulating data, suppressing evidence, contemplating violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, withholding data on the pre-industrial Medieval Warm Period, and plotting to keep dissenting scientists out of the peer review process, according to a Telegraph blog.

That certainly supports my earlier statement.

But it has no support in presented evidence. Assertions that agree with each other are interesting and indicative, but not much "support".

We're still waiting for the beef, here.

It's not a middle ground conclusion - I've heard equally stupid remarks from both sides.

Finding stupid remarks on "both sides" is not to the point - the question is, which "side" features the more significant intelligent remarks.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Let's not confuse the question of whether man or the sun is causing global warming with the question of whether global warming is happening.

I say yes it is but man is not the main cause. Just look around you were is the ICE going why is it 15 degrees at that end of November when when it should be closer to zero. Were have all the Glaciers gone did aliens take them did they just pickup and leave. Just observe the area around you and look for change to the environment around you. There is a definite change in LOCAL and GLOBAL weather patterns. And if you say I do not see any thing changing your are either one Blind two stupid or three in denial of what is actually happening around or Three too young to have been able to notice change over many many years. What the data is trying to say is that MAN is the evildoer for the majority of climate change they contribute be they are not the cause and it is foolish too think that we can stop it from happening it will happen regardless of what we do. Just look at the advancements have come in the last 40 years as far as air quality goes it has been huge the air is still not very good in some areas but that is do to old tech not being replaced.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

And the only reason the emails may be dubius is they want to shock people into action. They know there is nothing we can do but we people relize that they are going to panic and go OH no the world is ending. It is not ending it is going through a natural cycle it has being doing this since it was formed billions of years ago.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And the only reason the emails may be dubius is they want to shock people into action. They know there is nothing we can do but we people relize that they are going to panic and go OH no the world is ending. It is not ending it is going through a natural cycle it has being doing this since it was formed billions of years ago.

Your do relies due to said natural cycles complex life has only been possible on this planet for 10% of its life and that said life has been nearly killed off repeatedly by natural events?

I'm not really for global warming as I'm for geoengineering: its time we take control of the climate intentionally and for our benefit.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Your do relies due to said natural cycles complex life has only been possible on this planet for 10% of its life and that said life has been nearly killed off repeatedly by natural events?

I'm not really for global warming as I'm for geoengineering: its time we take control of the climate intentionally and for our benefit.

Well that would be good if would could take control of the climate and install a big ass Climtaostat on the earth. Aside from some cloud seeding to make rain in stead of hail they is little at this point in time Humans can realistically do to change the climate.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well that would be good if would could take control of the climate and install a big ass Climtaostat on the earth. Aside from some cloud seeding to make rain in stead of hail they is little at this point in time Humans can realistically do to change the climate.

Incorrect, there is alot we can do: we could for 25-50 Billion a year pump sulfur aerosols into the higher atmosphere and drop temperatures world wide by a degree in just a few years.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf

Even simple things like having white roofs and lighter colored roads could go a long way to cooling the planet.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf

 

[CheskiChips]

Incorrect, there is alot we can do: we could for 25-50 Billion a year pump sulfur aerosols into the higher atmosphere and drop temperatures world wide by a degree in just a few years.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf

This editorial doesn't take into account the implicit reduced sea surface temperatures that will reduce rainfall world wide. It would be a valid technique if it was known that the sun was going to output significantly higher radiation for extended periods, that's about all I can think it would be useful for.

Even simple things like having white roofs and lighter colored roads could go a long way to cooling the planet.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf

This should reduce urban heat islands, though, urban heat islands haven't been shown to have effect on regions relatively close to them. I can't remember the exact numbers, but at a relatively short distance outside the city limits the environment reaches homogeneity with rather isolated environments of the same kind. It's a simple and uncostly attainable goal and there's no reason to attempt it, but it shouldn't reduce any global warming assuming it exists.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Well this maybe true but what about the acid rain that would follow this big plan what about that and it would be world wide the acidity levels of everything would rise killing all kinds of plants and wildlife not to mention the humans would suffer from this as well as there crops would fail due to acid rain. Essentially you are saying lets go back 30 40 years and start to pump sulfur back into the air and create a whole new problem.

 

[ElectricFetus]

This editorial doesn't take into account the implicit reduced sea surface temperatures that will reduce rainfall world wide. It would be a valid technique if it was known that the sun was going to output significantly higher radiation for extended periods, that's about all I can think it would be useful for.

More modeling does need to be done to prove or disprove that it will reduce rainfall but lets assume that does reduce rainfall, one can't simply assume that if the solar output were to increase such the the aerosols would have no total cooling effect that rainfall levels would also have no net effect.

This should reduce urban heat islands, though, urban heat islands haven't been shown to have effect on regions relatively close to them I can't remember the exact numbers, but at a relatively short distance outside the city limits the environment reaches homogeneity with rather isolated environments of the same kind. It's a simple and uncostly attainable goal and there's no reason to attempt it, but it shouldn't reduce any global warming assuming it exists.

According to my citation anywhere between 0.01-0.19 W/m reduction of the whole planet by simply having high albedo roofing and roads, true this would only subtract .5-5% out of the effect of all our added CO2 but that still an effect, and reducing the heat island effect is a good thing for cities and would save them a lot of money in cooling bills.

Well this maybe true but what about the acid rain that would follow this big plan what about that and it would be world wide the acidity levels of everything would rise killing all kinds of plants and wildlife not to mention the humans would suffer from this as well as there crops would fail due to acid rain. Essentially you are saying lets go back 30 40 years and start to pump sulfur back into the air and create a whole new problem.

Stratosphere SO4 particles would fall out at a rate slow enough produce minimal pH change in rain fall. Mind you recent volcanic eruptions have done similar but into the troposphere with much faster fall out rates and we have not all died.

Mount Pinatubo in June, 1991, which injected some 10 Tg S, initially as SO2 , into the tropical stratosphere (Wilson et al., 1993; Bluth et al., 1992). In this case enhanced reflection of solar radiation to space by the particles cooled the earth’s surface on average by 0.5 ◦ C in the year following the eruption (Lacis and Mishchenko, 1995). Although climate cooling by sulfate aerosols also occurs in the troposphere (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001), the great advantage of placing reflective particles in the stratosphere is their long residence time of about 1–2 years, compared to a week in the troposphere. Thus, much less sulfur, only a few percent, would be required in the stratosphere to achieve similar cooling as the tropospheric sulfate aerosol (e.g., Dickinson, 1996; Schneider, 1996; NAS, 1992; Stern, 2005). This would make it possible to reduce air pollution near the ground, improve ecological conditions and reduce the concomitant climate warming.

 

[CheskiChips]

More modeling does need to be done to prove or disprove that it will reduce rainfall but lets assume that does reduce rainfall, one can't simply assume that if the solar output were to increase such the the aerosols would have no total cooling effect that rainfall levels would also have no net effect.

I'm not sure if you wrote what you meant to say - because it looks like you must of corrected two sentences and combined them. It doesn't make sense.

It's already known as a fact that increased albedo decreases rainfall - no further modelling needed.

Increased surface input always means increased sea surface temperatures. Increased surface temperatures always means increased evaporation. Land always cools faster than water meaning there should always be higher rainfall. Since solar radiation has little to no affect on aerosol distribution then there's no way that it could increase albedo.

According to my citation anywhere between 0.01-0.19 W/m reduction of the whole planet by simply having high albedo roofing and roads, true this would only subtract .5-5% out of the effect of all our added CO2 but that still an effect, and reducing the heat island effect is a good thing for cities and would save them a lot of money in cooling bills.

Those statistics are probably .01-.19 / TotalIncoming is probably about equal to HumanModification/TotalSurfaceArea.


Those

 

[ElectricFetus]

I'm not sure if you wrote what you meant to say - because it looks like you must of corrected two sentences and combined them. It doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to me.

It's already known as a fact that increased albedo decreases rainfall - no further modelling needed.

Bullshit, even more so when your assuming increasing solar input at the same time.

Increased surface input always means increased sea surface temperatures. Increased surface temperatures always means increased evaporation.

It not increasing surface temperature it increase atmosphere temperature, specifically upper atmosphere temperature, which is miles apart from the ocean/land surface.

 

[CheskiChips]

Bullshit, even more so when your assuming increasing solar input at the same time.

Okay, don't accept that fact, I don't care. I'm not assuming anything about solar input. I'm pretty sure even the IPCC reports agree with me, I'm also pretty sure you're not familiar with convective temperatures. The most relevant temperature is the surface temperature for rain events.

Here's a little hint for you...
Increased Atmospheric Temperature + Decreased surface temperatures = no rain. If you need proof, consult your nearest Thermodynamic Diagram.

It not increasing surface temperature it increase atmosphere temperature, specifically upper atmosphere temperature, which is miles apart from the ocean/land surface.

That's just not true - if it was, the atmosphere would experience more significant diurnal cycles than the surface. That's not the case, I don't know how anyone who knew anything about atmospheric science could think that - thus, you're making it up based on intuition. The thermosphere might experience diurnal cycles, but as far as the Stratosphere goes (You know...that sphere that all weather occurs in?) well...it's significantly more stable than the surface.

AND...even if you WERE right..

If the atmosphere increased in temperature, and the surface didn't - then you STILL don't have rainfall because parcels couldn't advect. No advection means no rainfall - ever hear of a temperature inversion?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Okay, don't accept that fact, I don't care. I'm not assuming anything about solar input. I'm pretty sure even the IPCC reports agree with me, I'm also pretty sure you're not familiar with convective temperatures. The most relevant temperature is the surface temperature for rain events.

You stated originally that it would only be useful if solar input increase, I don't believe in that case it would alleviate all the problems that would cause. Of course the most relevant temperature is surface temperatures that is not being changed by heating of the stratosphere caused by sulfur aerosols!

Here's a little hint for you...
Increased Atmospheric Temperature + Decreased surface temperatures = no rain. If you need proof, consult your nearest Thermodynamic Diagram.

Here some more math for you: Heating the stratosphere =/= heating the low atmosphere

That's just not true - if it was, the atmosphere would experience more significant diurnal cycles than the surface.[That's not the case, I don't know how anyone who knew anything about atmospheric science could think that - thus, you're making it up based on intuition.The thermosphere might experience diurnal cycles, but as far as the Stratosphere goes (You know...that sphere that all weather occurs in?) well...it's significantly more stable than the surface.

And this has to do with what now? And for your information its the Troposphere were most weather occurs! So explain to me how again heating the stratosphere is going to cause reduced rainfall in the troposphere?

 

[countezero]

The "beef" seems to be there. Collusion, of an unethical sort, definitely appears to have been the order of the day. It's disturbing to say the least, but not totally unexpected. Without hazarding an opinion about global warming, it's not surprising to learn that those who benefit from it are essentially advertising for it. Al Gore's profiteering on "green" business ventures are near legendary.

 

[iceaura]

The "beef" seems to be there. Collusion, of an unethical sort, definitely appears to have been the order of the day

So far, nothing in the record about "the order of the day" being anything like that.

If the beef is there, let's see it. That guy from NASA - James Hansen sp? - has complained about the centrists in the reviewing panels rejecting his stuff, allegedly because (he said) it showed the IPCC to be underestimating the problem, but that's the most serious substantiated claim on record so far.

 

[countezero]

Anyone who can understand English can detect collusion from the emails.

 

[iceaura]

Anyone who can understand English can detect collusion from the emails.

Attempts at it, in small and personal ways, behind the scenes and among the political infighting of academics caught up in a political mess.

The assertion was that unethical collusion was the order of the day among the scientific establishment in its research and official reports - meaning a dominating influence over both the research and public scene, actually established. That assertion has no support as yet, and it's a little late for it to show up.

The most serious accusations of collusion among the IPCC guys have come from the more radical exponents of critical and looming threats created by the CO2 buildup, such as James Hansen , who has been saying for years that the IPCC reports are illegitimately "conservative" and mollifying to industrial interests, that the threats are more immediate and more serious, and that his own research has not been properly included or handled.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Anyone who can understand English can detect collusion from the emails.

With enough paranoia and bias, sure you can, in any email.

 

[countezero]

Ice, we can read. Anthony has posted some quotes. There are others.

 

[GeoffP]

Jesus. Nasty. It sounds a lot like data fishing to me; if you were going to do it, that's probably how you would sound. I've heard it from grad students that I've sharply warned off. I believe global warming is happening, but I want to see this issue concluded objectively.