Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 108
ClimategatePage 5 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Once again seems your trying to rewrite the facts,Please read message 178 again ,it gives numbers you cannot dismiss,84% of scientists,which is 8.4 million of them believe GW is man made.Which leaves 1.6 million that believe its not,so even if I squint I cannot see how you think we are not the majority,8.4 million is bigger than 1.6 million right !

You are cooking the numbers.
Say your ratios are correct. That is for scientists that are active in the GW movement. There millions of scientists who wish to be no part of the fraud. You make it sound like 84% of all scientists believe. Some for no purposes other that securing billions of dollars in government grants to continue their hoax. Not too many people are giving up six figure incomes nowdays and as has been proven time and time again, people lie (and give acute misinformation). Especially for money and massive power.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 2/17/2010 1:36:59 PM

The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.
I didn't cook the numbers, its a poll,I clearly stated to reread post 178,because as usual people come on and act like no facts were given then you redirect them back to the post or posts and even you did not go back to 178.The poll is no different than what your side constantly uses as proof that x amount of poeple hate Obama,except in those cases the leading polls talk to 500-700-1100 people and in this case they talked to 2000 AAAS scientists.Seems your side completely believes in these polls and even the one post that knocked mine seems to think that it only takes 3 fraudulent climatologists to call all research false .Polls gotta love um,until they are used against you huh !At least this poll asked scientists,Gallup and the others talk to anyone that answers the phone.
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 110
Climategate
Posted: 2/21/2010 3:48:42 PM
HEADLINE

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

<div class="quote">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.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

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."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 111
Climategate
Posted: 2/23/2010 9:57:34 AM
Anybody really trust them to be open and honest this time ???

Predictably there are millions upon millions.
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 112
Climategate
Posted: 4/16/2010 10:51:00 PM
Let's hope not but I just heard the volcano in Eyjafjallajokull, Iceland could very well last for years with consistent eruptions. Nobody knows.
I wonder if AL Gore is ready to take on Fire Goddess Madame Pele or if there's not enough coin involved in that venture for him?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 113
Climategate
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:56:37 AM
But I thought your position was that particulate emissions into the atmosphere don't cause climate change.

Careful, you don't want to be forced to admit that pollution might be bad.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:31:50 AM

But I thought your position was that particulate emissions into the atmosphere don't cause climate change.

No, the position is that man made carbon dioxide emissions by themselves don't cause climate change.

Particulate emissions actually have a cooling effect and mankind just doesn't hold a candle to a volcano.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 115
Climategate
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:40:28 AM

Particulate emissions actually have a cooling effect

Correct! They help to offset the greenhouse gases released by volcanoes.

mankind just doesn't hold a candle to a volcano.

Sigh... this has been debunked and cited in so many places, here and elsewhere on the web, that I feel it is fruitless to even try to cite it again here. "Casting pearls" and all that. Mankind's output holds a blowtorch to a volcano, to borrow your metaphor.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 4/19/2010 7:26:26 PM

Correct! They help to offset the greenhouse gases released by volcanoes.

Great… Politically Correct volcanoes.

Mankind's output holds a blowtorch to a volcano, to borrow your metaphor.

Okay, a blowtorch. Propane or MAP gas? The point being the order of magnitude difference.
The pictures are just amazing no matter how much pollution is being produced!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36645958?GT1=43001
But think of all the jet fuel not being burned at the moment. That has to compensate a little.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 4/23/2010 9:04:04 AM
Normal volcanic activity has a negligible effect on climate, and the current eruption falls within that range. A massive eruption such as could occur with the neighbor volcano to the one the has recently disrupted air traffic WOULD cause a temporary cooling effect globally that could last a year or two, but that would just constitute a temporary respite in the continued warming trend on the planet. There's tons of science out there to back that up.

The science supporting the cooling effect of particulate matter comes from the same scientists who show the greenhouse effect of human produced CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gasses. It's disingenious to cherry pick which science to believe from the same sources and processes.

Natural processes have a powerful effect, and have created the only known planet we could live on. But we've evolved into the most powerful species on the planet, for better AND worse. It's our obligation to focus our energies on using our better qualities and capabilities to compensate for our worst ones. With power comes responsibility.

Dave
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 118
Climategate
Posted: 4/24/2010 4:22:28 PM


A massive eruption such as could occur with the neighbor volcano to the one the has recently disrupted air traffic WOULD cause a temporary cooling effect globally that could last a year or two, but that would just constitute a temporary respite in the continued warming trend on the planet. There's tons of science out there to back that up.


So where's the evidence for the continued warming trend? Looks to me like we're in a cooling trend.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 119
Climategate
Posted: 4/24/2010 5:21:00 PM


Your looking out your window? Or you have a source?


http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Maybe I should just close my eyes and listen to Gore.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 4/24/2010 5:30:41 PM

Maybe I should just close my eyes and listen to Gore.

All you'll hear him say is 'no comment'... that's if you can find him.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 121
Climategate
Posted: 4/24/2010 10:07:15 PM


I will go with NASA ...

2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The U.K. Met Office, and the World Meteorological Organisation have all stated that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record for the globe.


This, if true, does not contradict the claim that there's been a cooling trend over the same time period.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 122
Climategate
Posted: 4/25/2010 5:58:50 PM


You betcha... Warmer is Cooler... War is Peace.... ect


Where's the evidence that the decade has shown a warming trend? That's the problem with Global Warming Hystericists. You'd rather attack people than present evidence.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 123
Climategate
Posted: 4/25/2010 11:47:25 PM

I am not sure if NASA should be charged with Genocide.
I don't remember ....Did your source listed them as Criminals? 50 Million Dead.


I don't know. Was NASA involved in getting DDT banned which resulted in 50 million dead from maleria? Does this have anything to do with global warming? Why do Global Warming Hystericists keep dodging my request for evidence that there was a warming trend over the past decade? Could it be because there wasn't one?



2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade


This doesn't contradict a 10 year cooling trend. Didn't someone else just try throwing out this red herring?

Edit: Nope, it was the same person.


2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.


This doesn't contradict a 10 year cooling trend.



“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.


He claims a warming based on a 30 year trend. This allows him to hide the recent cooling trend. Incidentally the period from the 1940's to the 1970's was a cooling period, not a levelling off period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This graph shows a warming trend from 1880 to about 1940, then a cooling from the early 40's to the late 70's, then an increase to the early 2000's followed by a cooling period.

So for the third time, where is the evidence for a warming trend over the past decade?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 124
Climategate
Posted: 4/26/2010 7:13:57 AM

I am convinced, thanks.

DDT was not banned for use against Malaria.


I didn't say it was. Banning DDT meant that malaria carrying mosquitos were not being killed by DDT, which meant more people dying because of malaria. 50 million if the estimates are right. But at least you're convinced that the last decade has been a period of cooling.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 4/26/2010 10:33:31 AM

So for the third time, where is the evidence for a warming trend over the past decade?


The graph you cited clearly shows the overall warming trend in temps, with a slight dip at the end of the graph, which only goes to 2006. Trends are established over long periods of time, not daily or yearly. In the scale that climate scientists focus on, decades are about the smallest useful unit for trend analysis, and as reiterated and documented here and elsewhere, we've just emerged from the warmest decade on record.

If you want to focus just on the trend since 1998, or from 2007 to 2008, that's up to you, but not particularly useful for overall climate trend analysis.

Dave
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 126
Climategate
Posted: 4/27/2010 10:16:24 PM


The graph you cited clearly shows the overall warming trend in temps, with a slight dip at the end of the graph, which only goes to 2006.


Earlier I posted a link with more complete data for this century which shows a cooling trend in the last decade. So where is the evidence for a continued warming trend?



If you want to focus just on the trend since 1998, or from 2007 to 2008, that's up to you, but not particularly useful for overall climate trend analysis.


I've been focusing on the trend for the past decade because there was a claim for a continued warming trend.

I've noticed a tendency for AGW proponents to take data for a century (or whatever time period) and fit it to a line (for example, this is done in the Wiki article on global warming). Yet clearly the average global temperature doesn't change linearly with time. Due to the complex nature of the climate any such simple trend analysis is going to be useless.

The only saving grace of the linear (or any polynomial) trend analysis is that over short time frames it's a good approximation. You can check this for yourself by drawing a random curve on a piece of paper and then using a ruler connecting randonly spaced points along the curve with a straight line. When the points are close together the line is a good approximation. When the points are far apart the line is a terrible approximation.

If you want to look at long term check out:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

This graph has data from 8 different sources for the past 12K years. Take note of how different the sources are from each other. Our measurement are not very precise. The 2004 data is well within the natural variability of the climate. 8000 years ago the temperature may have been a whole degree warmer than it is today. The earth did not implode or melt. Life did not die off.
 smartaleck
Joined: 8/7/2008
Msg: 127
Climategate
Posted: 5/5/2010 5:56:31 PM
Hey Jayron,
I think you meant climate change is real. (The non-deniers would like us to stop using the term global warming now because the term no longer fits the actual data and climate change is a constant, they can't loose with that term.) The rest of your post is spot on though.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 5/5/2010 8:43:33 PM

I think you meant climate change is real. (The non-deniers would like us to stop using the term global warming now because the term no longer fits the actual data and climate change is a constant, they can't loose with that term.)


Who keeps perpetuating this nonsense?

Both terms are accurate and current.

The globe is warming overall, which creates changes in regional climates. Those climate changes include more rain here, less there, warmer many places, but cooler others, unusual weather patterns, changes in snowfall, and possibly more intense hurricanes and other extreme weather.

But you still hear climate scientists today use the term 'global warming', because that's what the globe is doing.

Amazing how the contrarian crowd keeps trying to put words in our mouths.

Dave
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 129
Climategate
Posted: 5/5/2010 9:45:23 PM


The globe is warming overall,


Please provide evidence that the globe is warming overall. I've been good enough to provide evidence that the globe is cooling overall.



which creates changes in regional climates. Those climate changes include more rain here, less there, warmer many places, but cooler others, unusual weather patterns, changes in snowfall, and possibly more intense hurricanes and other extreme weather.


The models actually make predictions about what these regional changes will be. So now please provide evidence that the models have already made correct predictions.



But you still hear climate scientists today use the term 'global warming', because that's what the globe is doing.


No, it's currently cooling.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 5/7/2010 6:11:46 PM

Please provide evidence that the globe is warming overall. I've been good enough to provide evidence that the globe is cooling overall.


Have you?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-stomps-on-monckton-disinformation-thank-you-climate-progress-readers/

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckton-debunked/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

As for evidence that the globe is warming,

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_co2_2010.jpg

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100415_marchstats.html

So what we have is your citation from a man with no climate science background and in fact little scientific credentials at all, as opposed to the cumulative work of legions of bona fide climate scientists.

Dave
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 131
Climategate
Posted: 5/7/2010 9:18:18 PM


As for evidence that the globe is warming,

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_co2_2010.jpg


That's a graph of CO2, not temperature. You might want to actually look at a link before you post it.



http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/


This link provides no evidence that the globe is currently warming.



http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100415_marchstats.html


This link is about March 2010 being the warmest March on record, but then blames it on El Nino.



http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-stomps-on-monckton-disinformation-thank-you-climate-progress-readers/


This article merely claims that the study has been debunked. The link and links inside this link don't even address Mockton's claim about the cooling trend for the last decade.



http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckton-debunked/


In order to counter Mockton's claim of a recent cooling trend, this article mentions an AP article. That article can be found at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-r_ws_333941.html

but does not address Mockton's specific claim. The article doesn't mention who the statisticians were. It only gives the barest hints about what statistical tests were used. One of the tests is said to use 10 year moving averages. But that means it's using from 20 years ago which means it cannot be used to counter Mockton's claim of a cooling trend from the period of 2001 to 2009.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/


This is another article that doesn't address his claim about the 2001-2009 cooling trend.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 5/8/2010 6:12:26 PM

That's a graph of CO2, not temperature. You might want to actually look at a link before you post it.


Oops. My bad. I did look at it, but not closely enough.


This link provides no evidence that the globe is currently warming.


Third paragraph:


"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said James Hansen, the director of GISS. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."



This link is about March 2010 being the warmest March on record, but then blames it on El Nino.


First, you asked for evidence of warming. I provided it, from a scientific source. Your evidence of cooling comes in the form of an assertion by a non-scientist. And we've had many El Nino's, but only one warmest March on record. There's nothing extraordinary about this particular El Nino cited that would make it exert more influence than any other El Nino on record.

More on Monckton and the current warming trend here:


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100415_marchstats.html


And to bring us squarely back on the topic you started this thread on, included in the above article is the following:


n February, a Penn State University panel that was formed to investigate climatologist Michael Mann, a prominent member of the faculty there and recipient of around 300 of the hacked emails, cleared the researcher of all wrongdoing.

Similarly, an examination by the British House of Commons into CRU director Phil Jones found no unethical behavior on the part of Jones and "no reason" to challenge the scientific consensus. And last month, a panel convened by the University of East Anglia and led by Lord Ronald Oxburgh, the former chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee, concluded that there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work."

Lisa Graumlich, director of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of Arizona and member of the Oxburgh panel, told Congress on Thursday that "if [scientific malpractice] had been there, we believe we would have detected it."

With the scientific consensus now sufficiently clear, "the urgency to act is very much upon us," Graumlich said.


Dave
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate