Climategate!

[sgreger1]

I get tired of the arguments by the politicians and the endless mouthpieces that keep telling us it's a conspiracy to take away our wealth and just relax and do nothing and everything will be fine and can be solved with idiots like Sarah Palin yelling Drill Baby Drill!

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/clima...-and-delusion/

I agree to an extent, the republicans are doing a god job of saying no to stupid things, but I don't see that they have any plan to do anything better. Doing nothing is retarded either way because whether AGW is as big a threat as advertised or not, going green is a good idea. Going green does not mean setting up a new carbon trading scheme and forcing people to buy carbon credits to offset their existence as a carbon dioxide breathing being though.


It looks like there is a good chance republicans will win back some seats this year, but I think they are making the same mistakes the democrats did. The democrats got into congress because people were voting agains Bush/republicans, not for democrats. Now people are upset with the democrats so they (like in MA) are voting against democrats, but not necessarily for republicans. So when the republicans get in, I hope they don't stick to their normal "lets just do nothing" routine. If we could find a balance between "lets do nothing" and "omg the sky is falling" that would be great.

[sgreger1]

UN SCIENTIST INVOLVED IN IPCC REPORT ADMITS FAKING GLACIER DATA FOR POLITICAL GAIN


The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

/ not typo
// not peer-reviewed
/// to push political agenda


Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0deF1p9sF

[justintempler]

I got better things to do than to argue about stories from tabloid newspapers.

Their top Science and Tech Headline today is:
The digital revolution is making Earth harder to detect by inquisitive aliens, world's leading ET hunter says

This is where you get your news about global warming from?

[sgreger1]

Haa, typical Justin, if you can't argue the point, than complain about the source.

You even tried to discredit BBC and AP earlier in the thread.

But just to humor you, how about some other sources that are more established

NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE:
Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=online-news

SCIENCE NEWS MAGAZINE:
IPCC's Himalayan glacier 'mistake' not an accident

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...ot_an_accident

THE ECONOMIST:
A mistaken claim about glaciers raises questions about the UN’s climate panel

http://www.economist.com/sciencetech...ry_id=15328534

The point is that they admit to using this grey literature in an official IPCC report. The author of said data admits it was used to try and apply political pressure on governments. My point the whole time. Doesn't mean all of AGW is wrong, but that there is enough foul play here to make one skeptical.

[sgreger1]

Phill Jones from CRU (climategate emails) shines some light on climate change:

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.

Terry Mills, a professor of applied statistics at Britain's Loughborough University, looks at the U.N. panel's data and applies a little skepticism. "The earth," he told London's Daily Mail, "has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last thousand years."

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change

Hockey Stick Data Lost

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

[justintempler]

Phill Jones from CRU (climategate emails) shines some light on climate change:

Why do you insist on getting your news second hand after it's been cherry picked and distorted by the likes of the Daily Mail?

Here is a link to the transcript of BBC's Q&A with Professor Phil Jones:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[justintempler]

sgreger1 you're ex-military.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51054

Climate Change On Navy's Radar

Story Number: NNS100203-30
Release Date: 2/3/2010 9:47:00 PM

From Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command Public Affairs

ATLANTA, Ga. (NNS) -- The director of the U.S. Navy's Task Force Climate Change (TFCC) said the earth is truly experiencing a climate change and the Navy needs to be prepared for potential impacts on its mission areas.

Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy and TFCC Director Rear Adm. David Titley made his remarks as part of a panel discussion on environmental security and climate change at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Atlanta last month.

The Task Force makes recommendations to Navy leadership regarding policy, strategy, force structure and investments relating to climate change. Of immediate interest is the Navy's investment in observation and prediction capabilities.

Titley said the rate of global warming has not slowed, and the long term trend is rising. The Arctic is among the areas seeing the greatest impact from climate change, with sea ice coverage during summer months steadily diminishing, and the ice is thinner when the Arctic Ocean freezes again in the winter.

Titley said the ice volume has declined and is not coming back.

"We're really seeing a tremendous change in the Arctic," he said, adding that the "new" normal for the Arctic is to be not completely frozen all year.

The implications are significant for the Navy's fixed assets as well as operations and potential operations, and Navy leadership will have to decide how to respond.

For instance, a sea-level rise of two meters can cause the Navy to evaluate which of its bases will be viable, and additionally queries whether or not the Navy should operate ice-hardened ships in an ice-diminished arctic, even though ice-hardened ships cost more to build and to operate.

Consequently, Titley said, the Navy is interested in reducing its carbon-based energy output by 50 percent by 2020.

Task Force Climate Change recently released its Arctic Roadmap, which guides Navy policy, investment, action and public discussion regarding the Arctic. Another roadmap for the broader issue of global climate change will subsequently be developed.

The Navy also works with interagency and international partners to assess changes in the Arctic and to prevent conflict that might result from the change.

For more news from Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/cnmoc/.

You know the Navy, remember them..
The people that actually care about ice in the polar regions........

[sgreger1]

sgreger1 you're ex-military.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51054

Climate Change On Navy's Radar

Story Number: NNS100203-30
Release Date: 2/3/2010 9:47:00 PM

From Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command Public Affairs

ATLANTA, Ga. (NNS) -- The director of the U.S. Navy's Task Force Climate Change (TFCC) said the earth is truly experiencing a climate change and the Navy needs to be prepared for potential impacts on its mission areas.

Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy and TFCC Director Rear Adm. David Titley made his remarks as part of a panel discussion on environmental security and climate change at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Atlanta last month.

The Task Force makes recommendations to Navy leadership regarding policy, strategy, force structure and investments relating to climate change. Of immediate interest is the Navy's investment in observation and prediction capabilities.

Titley said the rate of global warming has not slowed, and the long term trend is rising. The Arctic is among the areas seeing the greatest impact from climate change, with sea ice coverage during summer months steadily diminishing, and the ice is thinner when the Arctic Ocean freezes again in the winter.

Titley said the ice volume has declined and is not coming back.

"We're really seeing a tremendous change in the Arctic," he said, adding that the "new" normal for the Arctic is to be not completely frozen all year.

The implications are significant for the Navy's fixed assets as well as operations and potential operations, and Navy leadership will have to decide how to respond.

For instance, a sea-level rise of two meters can cause the Navy to evaluate which of its bases will be viable, and additionally queries whether or not the Navy should operate ice-hardened ships in an ice-diminished arctic, even though ice-hardened ships cost more to build and to operate.

Consequently, Titley said, the Navy is interested in reducing its carbon-based energy output by 50 percent by 2020.

Task Force Climate Change recently released its Arctic Roadmap, which guides Navy policy, investment, action and public discussion regarding the Arctic. Another roadmap for the broader issue of global climate change will subsequently be developed.

The Navy also works with interagency and international partners to assess changes in the Arctic and to prevent conflict that might result from the change.

For more news from Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/cnmoc/.

You know the Navy, remember them..
The people that actually care about ice in the polar regions........

Yes, Arctic sea ice is is decreasing and reached a record low in 2007.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet, Antarctic ice is growing.

Why then is only the Artic taken into account? That would be like me measuring the temperature during the day and ignoring the temperature at night, and then coming up with an average 24 hour temperature of 80 degrees.

From NewScientist

Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates.

But satellite images studied by Turner and his colleagues show that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in every month of the year expect January. "By the end of the century we expect one third of Antarctic sea ice to disappear," says Turner. "So we're trying to understand why it's increasing now, at a time of global warming."

[justintempler]

...Why then is only the Artic taken into account?...

Who said they were? Do you think the military is that stupid?

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions

[sgreger1]

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC, the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.

Most concern has focused on the Arctic regions, rather than Antarctica. Recent research has indicated Antarctica is on a long-term cooling trend, for reasons which remain unclear.

http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees...ticle12851.htm

[justintempler]

...a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany....

untill you look at the thickness of the ice...... :roll:

[sgreger1]

...Why then is only the Artic taken into account?...

Who said they were? Do you think the military is that stupid?

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions

Sorry I didn't mean the military, I meant the scientists, the media, the politicians. All I hear about is how the poor arctic ice is melting.


Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7%.



That would be like me looking at the data and saying "this is what I know about temperature trends"



But then turning around and reporting that ZOmGG LOOK, It's warming!!11!!!one! and jsut showing this part of the temperature record

[justintempler]

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51054

Climate Change On Navy's Radar

....and the ice is thinner when the Arctic Ocean freezes again in the winter.

Titley said the ice volume has declined and is not coming back....

[sgreger1]

...a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany....

untill you look at the thickness of the ice...... :roll:

So what is the goal of all of this money and research. That somehow via legislation from our enlightened politicians we will somehow stop all change on the planet? No species will ever go extinct and the ice will never melt, continents will never move? The temperature will remain constant?

Regardless of what we do, ice will melt in one place,and grow in another. The continents will drift, earthquakes will happen, sea levels will go up and down. If some arrogant life form came around and decided to stop "global warming" and all the changes that happened in the time of the dinosaurs, evolution and environmental changes woul have never given birth to intelligent life and we would not exist. Nature has a plan, and it has a process.

I can't believe we are spending hundreds of millions on this and using our NASA and intelligence agency assets to try and come up with a way to make the earth a static and never changing environment.

[sgreger1]

Just to give everyone a snapshot of what kind of world we can expect to live in if these alarmist end of the world predictions continue getting out of hand:

An article in the The Times of London titled “Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches” takes this non-sense to a whole new level. In it, physicist Alex Wissner-Gross (a star MIT graduate who is now at Harvard) claims that a single Google search generates 7-10 grams of CO2 while a boiling tea kettle only on uses around 15g. He claims “a Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

Yea right, I'm sure Alex Wissner-Gross would like it if we all simply sat in our darkened caves and sketched images on the wall by feel.