Climategate

[steelish]

Interesting, thanks for noting that. 1860 fits the theory, but I didn't realise they had pushed the data back that far.
The BBC will be fascinated to learn that they are now a fringe medium.

in 1860 there were no SUVs...no industrialization. It "fits the theory" hmmm?

[MMI]

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain can be traced back to the 1600s if not earlier. By the mid 19th century, it was well under way, and the steady growth of factories, heavy industry and steel mills in rapidly developing urban areas all had their effect on the atmosphere. In larger cities, the English fog had become the smog for which the country was once so notorious. No heavy traffic as such, but coal fired steam engines of all kinds were to be found, while gas supplies, when they began to be distributed throughout towns and cities, did not take the form of "clean" natural gas, but were made from coal, wood and other similar materials.

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

[Thorne]

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

While that would have had localized effects, certainly, it's doubtful that there would have been global effects, at least the kinds of effects we are seeing now. There simply weren't enough industrialized cities for that.

[MMI]

Yeah. I think you're right.

I withdraw that suggestion.

[denuseri]

Burning fires of allmost any kind release carbon into the air peeps.

And lets not forget the additonal build up can be gradually accumulated, though even with all the open pit burning that was done for strip mining from the 17th century until the 19th took over with oil, I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle.

Its probabely a combination of solar positional, /distance and intensity, volcanic emmissions (both terestrial and subsurface benthic kinds), sea floor particulate release, and human interaction.

Which is of course besides the point.

Even if we don't know whats cuasing it to happen, or how much we have contributed; we still need to stop doing the things that are going to surely fuck us and our posterity down the road now while we can.

[steelish]

Don't forget that those "warming periods" were followed by cooler times. During the early 70s we were all warned that the next ice age was coming.

Florida is in it's coldest winter in history, record snowfalls in DC, extreme cold in the Northeast and midwest, etc. Seems like it might be a cooling trend starting...maybe? Won't Al Gore feel foolish if the next 10 to 15 years are cooler.

[denuseri]

All while the glaciers have gotten smaller than they have been in thousands of years and at a faster rate than any evidence we have today of their history can account for.

[steelish]

Actually, there is evidence that the glaciers have gotten smaller before in history, then built back up. I will hunt for it.

(and I am speaking of evidence that a scientist submitted...not something that someone suspects)

[steelish]

Another thing to remember...all of earth's land was once one giant continent, and ice caps were almost everywhere. The giant continent broke up and drifted apart over millions of years - ice caps formed on the north and south pole regions.

Knowing this, why is it so hard for people to believe that what we are experiencing is a natural part of the earth's life? The glaciers you speak of have been melting for over 100 years while glaciers on the opposite pole are INCREASING.

I just think it's very presumptuous of us to assume it's us causing all this when in the earth's life, we've only been here for the blink of an eye so far.

Do I think we could treat the planet better? YES. But that does not mean I think the US should destroy it's future on a policy that won't make a difference because it WON'T reduce greenhouse gases even a portion of what they claim it will - yet it will cost trillions of dollars to instill.

[denuseri]

Again, the glaciers are not found only on the poles, and the reductions I am speaking of are world wide and they have been more rapid in over all reduction than ever before. Way more rapid. Previous changes have for the most part taken place over thousands of years (except the changes shown to come from stellar impacts). This change has been far far quicker (like recorded within most of our lifetimes).

Also, I am not saying that we as of yet know what extent of the recent rapid warming trend is due directly to humanity. Or when and if its going to tilt back the other way. So far its really showing signs of hitting a complete melting progression point and not going back into some kind of cooling mode.

That point is moot anyway. We have to adapt to the enviroment and be ready to adapt rapidly or face the consequences.

I fail to see how converting our power and transportation infrastructures away from ones based on unrenewable fossil fuels that are allready showing signs of dwindling (and have been since we reached peak production and aquisition levels in the early 80's) to more self sufficient means is going to be a bad thing for anyone other than greedy global corperations (mainly big oil and coal) who dont give a dam about us as consumers anyway only about our money.

Changing ahead of time is going to be key. We sure are not going to be able to change once its too late. And when china and india start really sucking on the rescources which is coming sooner than you think, its allready starting, we will be wishing we did something now rather than have to scrape along asking for handouts later.

[steelish]

It's funny how much "Big Oil" is vilified in the media when you look at where the industry actually ranks in terms of net profit margin.

Evil Big Oil comes in ranked in 56th place with a 9.5% margin. That puts them behind such industries as Evil Mutual Funds, Evil Publishers, Evil Long-Distance Carriers, Evil Software, Evil Shipping, Evil Silver, Evil Copper, Evil Gold, Evil Drug Manufacturers, Evil Regional Banks, Evil Rail-roads, Evil Medical Supplies, Evil General Entertainment, Evil Footwear, Evil Resorts and Casinos, and Evil Education Services.

Yes, we need to come up with alternative energy sources, but realistically, that day is a long way off. How about we look at supplementing oil while working on alternatives? If we can gradually increase our reliance on clean sources of energy that are both economical and efficient, then the free markets will do the rest. Our reliance on oil will fall on its own, with absolutely no need for government subsidies, taxes or policies that attempt to "influence" the right decision but inevitably usher in the wrong one. Corn ethanol, anyone?

[denuseri]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative. Sugar cane would be better. Though nieather are nearly as good as hydrogen.

And I didnt say all business were bad, but faceless corperations are greedy.

[DuncanONeil]

When even the Guru of AGW says that the only consensus is that there is no consensus, why is it that the AGW crowd continues its mantra of gloom and doom? Why do they continue to trot out draconian measures to alter something that they do not yet understand?
This is like the Government demanding that the auto industry, I'm sorry the auto division of Government, reduce fuel consumption in cars. How did they do that? Mandate a fleet wide average, without consideration to any other business concern. The result? Not fuel efficient cars people buy, but a large segment of the fleet that has a high, tested, fuel consumption and everything else. What do the people buy? Largely everything else. Market forces would be a better engine of innovation that a mandate from some outsider. The Smart Car is making inroads in the US for a number of reasons, I can give you mine. I am not currently in the market for a car but the price, economy, safety, and difference of the car is large in my mind. Although I really would prefer one of the companies other models. Provided the EPA doesn't screw it up. When I first found the Smart it was reported at 60 mpg, by the time it passed US regs it was a mere 40 mpg.
Wandered a bit at the end there!

i did read them, thats why i posted.
When did i say that they diddnt report in the uk. blatently i said they did, but it is not always advisable to believe it without checking their sources... but i see im not going to get anywhere, and im wasting my time.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

And I think the ratio is not quite so far apart. Nor do we know which portion of the ratio applies to which side!

[DuncanONeil]

I did read the text of the interview. I also have a modicum of understanding of scientific methods and numbers.
Basically Mr Jones sounded a lot like a lawyer in his answers. They all came across like; "yes, but ..."
In other words having to admit the truth, but trying to mitigate the damage to themselves.

In part you are correct about generic weather data. But in terms of a conclusion drawn from a study, or experiment, your are off base. If an experiment is conducted, and result arrived at, the rule of repeatable is not predicated on start all over from scratch. Some other person is to be able to, with the data, or materials, used reproduce the result. In this case if the missing data was from China one can not reproduce the results of East Anglia, as you do not know where in China to look. I know! I know! Your position is to just go get data and run your own analysis. But people have done that and achieved different results. That is the issue here. What kind of scientist makes little effort to protect all aspects of his data for peer review. Don't you find that a bit suspicious?

I note you make no reference to Mr Jones admission that the planet has been cooling since 2002. Even though that is a small number statistically, you claimed that the mere fact of an increasing number is enough validity to claim a disastrous increase in global temperature, yet choose to ignore the opposite data. Shows a disposition to believe a certain outcome. Kind of like a high school project. No project is permitted to disprove a hypothesis, all projects must prove hypotheses true. Not how science really works!
An open mind is a prerequsite for scientific study!

And this shows just how wrong journalists can get it when they try to translate scientific language into journalese without understanding. (I'm doing Mr. Petre the courtesy of assuming it was an honest mistake and not deliberate distortion.)

If you read the actual text of the interview (which is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm , and I am following normal fair-use practioce, as well as good netiquette, by giving a link rather than cut and paste the whole text) you will find that what he says is that the increase in temperature (which is clear in the figures) is not quite "statistically signignificant". Which is to say that even though it's right there in the data, as a conscientious scientist he has to allow that it might be pure coincidence that every successive reading is higher than the last. That is a completely different thing from saying there has been "no warming", which would obviously be nonsense with the rising figures there for all to see.

The problem seems to be that the media, which wouldn't give the job of football correspondent to someone who never learnt the rules, happily give the job of "science correspondent" to journos who flunked Science 101.

Again, this sounds most impressive if you don't have the actual facts available. If you bother to check:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...t-weather-data
you will find that, after the hooraw suggesting that all the weather records in the world had been somehow deleted by one obscure British scientist, what's actually gone missing is the readings from a bunch of weather stations in northern China. (And if the Chinese don't have copies, they're not the bureaucratic state I take them for.)
Hold the front page! A journalist has just discovered what's in every elementary climatological textbook! World shaking admission!

It's this sort of invincible ignorance that makes the discussion so difficult. One has to educate people from scratch while they try to find a catch in everything one explains.
Because in the meantime the disaster is already happening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...cts-tajikistan

And while climate change deniers were having lots of fun about the blizzards in Washington, the Winter Olympics have been having to truck in snow so the ski slopes won't be grass.

The investigation is finished, it was finished years ago. It's the political fight that is never going to be finished so long as Big Oil has a million to spare for PR.

[DuncanONeil]

Did not quite realize how extensive his holdings were.
Most of them are without the US.
But there are a few here that actually fall with in the purview of MSM.

Aside from that many of the corporate heads of the rest of the MSM outlets come down on the conservative side of the spectrum, yet the news produced is often not.

Zero concern for facts? On all sides? So you take the position that the right lies, yet you choose to believe reports from the left? In spite of the assertion that they all have "zero concern for the facts". Do you write for Al Gore?

Except for the Murdoch outlets, which report it as if 50% of the scientists disagree. As I have observed elsewhere, the abysmal standard of science reporting - which is almost entirely written from the point of view of politics, with zero concern for facts - on all sides of the media, is part of the problem.

[DuncanONeil]

Then how do you account for the apparent cooling after 1880?

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain can be traced back to the 1600s if not earlier. By the mid 19th century, it was well under way, and the steady growth of factories, heavy industry and steel mills in rapidly developing urban areas all had their effect on the atmosphere. In larger cities, the English fog had become the smog for which the country was once so notorious. No heavy traffic as such, but coal fired steam engines of all kinds were to be found, while gas supplies, when they began to be distributed throughout towns and cities, did not take the form of "clean" natural gas, but were made from coal, wood and other similar materials.

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

[DuncanONeil]

I do not always agree with what you say but even when I do you method of stating is by far the most civilized.

Now you said; "I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle." But it seems that such a statement no longer fits the facts at hand. The premiere AGW guru Mr Jones has admitted that the planet is experiencing a cooling trend in existence since 2002. Greenhouse gases are supposed to trap extra-planetary radiation within the atmosphere. Yet there have been reports that a increase in the rate of radiation escaping the atmosphere is being recorded.

Burning fires of allmost any kind release carbon into the air peeps.

And lets not forget the additonal build up can be gradually accumulated, though even with all the open pit burning that was done for strip mining from the 17th century until the 19th took over with oil, I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle.

Its probabely a combination of solar positional, /distance and intensity, volcanic emmissions (both terestrial and subsurface benthic kinds), sea floor particulate release, and human interaction.

Which is of course besides the point.

Even if we don't know whats cuasing it to happen, or how much we have contributed; we still need to stop doing the things that are going to surely fuck us and our posterity down the road now while we can.

[DuncanONeil]

However those very glaciers are remnants of the last ice age! Remember how Greenland got its name? Even that was after the last ice age. It should be clear that these things as well are on some cycle that is currently beyond our ken.

All while the glaciers have gotten smaller than they have been in thousands of years and at a faster rate than any evidence we have today of their history can account for.

[DuncanONeil]

"Again, the glaciers are not found only on the poles, and the reductions I am speaking of are world wide and they have been more rapid in over all reduction than ever before. Way more rapid. Previous changes have for the most part taken place over thousands of years (except the changes shown to come from stellar impacts). This change has been far far quicker (like recorded within most of our lifetimes)."
We do not really know that. That is taking the axiom; "history begins when you are born", to the extreme. The simplest refutation is the Vikings and Greenland! The Norse settlements along the southwestern coast eventually disappeared after about 500 years. That is very rapid action for the planet!

Again, the glaciers are not found only on the poles, and the reductions I am speaking of are world wide and they have been more rapid in over all reduction than ever before. Way more rapid. Previous changes have for the most part taken place over thousands of years (except the changes shown to come from stellar impacts). This change has been far far quicker (like recorded within most of our lifetimes).

Also, I am not saying that we as of yet know what extent of the recent rapid warming trend is due directly to humanity. Or when and if its going to tilt back the other way. So far its really showing signs of hitting a complete melting progression point and not going back into some kind of cooling mode.

That point is moot anyway. We have to adapt to the enviroment and be ready to adapt rapidly or face the consequences.

I fail to see how converting our power and transportation infrastructures away from ones based on unrenewable fossil fuels that are allready showing signs of dwindling (and have been since we reached peak production and aquisition levels in the early 80's) to more self sufficient means is going to be a bad thing for anyone other than greedy global corperations (mainly big oil and coal) who dont give a dam about us as consumers anyway only about our money.

Changing ahead of time is going to be key. We sure are not going to be able to change once its too late. And when china and india start really sucking on the rescources which is coming sooner than you think, its allready starting, we will be wishing we did something now rather than have to scrape along asking for handouts later.

[DuncanONeil]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative. Sugar cane would be better. Though nieather are nearly as good as hydrogen.

And I didnt say all business were bad, but faceless corperations are greedy.

The data does not support the claim that "faceless corperations (sic) are greedy"

[denuseri]

What data? I see no data to support that they are not.

If any thing I see them (big oil and coal) pulling in reccord profits, while the costs to the consummers does nothing but rise until eaither the government steps in or the people simpley cant afford to buy anymore and then and only then do they relinquish thier strangle hold.

[steelish]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative.

No...it's not. But the government in their infinite wisdom decided it WAS and started to subsidize corn farmers that were growing corn for ethanol. What happened? The price of corn at produce departments skyrocketed, the price of beef and chicken went up due to the lack of grain for feed. It effected so much that the government didn't think of. That's the problem - they jump to solutions that aren't well thought out.

[denuseri]

I agree that the governemnts of the world will need near consensus and would benifit from taking the nessesary time after having entered extended consultation with multiple scientific sources as how best to solve the issues that will be facing our posterity and avoid seeking short term political gains.

In fact I have never said otherwise.

[DuncanONeil]

Oil company profits: A perspective
Earnings, Revenues, Profits (Billions) for selected companies, recent quarter, 2005
Source: Bloomberg News, reported in AAPG Explorer Dec. 2005
Company Net Profit Revenue Profit Margin
Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5 33%
Microsoft $3.1 $9.7 32%
Coca-Cola $1.3 $6.0 21%
Procter & Gamble $2.0 $14.8 14%
General Electric $4.7 $41.6 11%
ExxonMobil $9.9 $92.6 11%
ConocoPhillips $3.8 $48.7 8%
IBM $1.5 $21.5 7%
Chevron $3.6 $51.1 7%
Wal-Mart $2.8 $76.8 4%
Oil industry average profit margin is about 8.2%; (3rd Q. '05)
for all US industry, the average is about 6.8%.
Profits in the oil industry were easily outpaced by those of the
Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Household Products, Software, Telecommunications,
Semiconductors, Consumer Services, and Food, Beverage and Tobacco sectors.

What data? I see no data to support that they are not.

If any thing I see them (big oil and coal) pulling in reccord profits, while the costs to the consummers does nothing but rise until eaither the government steps in or the people simpley cant afford to buy anymore and then and only then do they relinquish thier strangle hold.

[DuncanONeil]

I live in Wisconsin. When the Ethanol Mandate went into effect I caught a farmer on a call in show.
He was receiving $1.25 per bushel of corn. He had told his wife that it was their last year. He was giving up! The mandate announcement immediately jumped the price to over $4.00 per bushel! He no longer needed to quit. But that is not the price only for corn into ethanol, but corn in general. Meaning that everything that uses corn has an concomitant increase in cost and hence price to us.

No...it's not. But the government in their infinite wisdom decided it WAS and started to subsidize corn farmers that were growing corn for ethanol. What happened? The price of corn at produce departments skyrocketed, the price of beef and chicken went up due to the lack of grain for feed. It effected so much that the government didn't think of. That's the problem - they jump to solutions that aren't well thought out.

[DuncanONeil]

Ain't gonna happen!

Government, lately ANY Government is of the opinion that what they "know" and "believe" is of more import than anything anyone else knows!

I agree that the governemnts of the world will need near consensus and would benifit from taking the nessesary time after having entered extended consultation with multiple scientific sources as how best to solve the issues that will be facing our posterity and avoid seeking short term political gains.

In fact I have never said otherwise.

[steelish]

Corn ethanol is hardely a good alternative.

No...it's not. But the government in their infinite wisdom decided it WAS and incentivized farmers to chase the money and use their crops for ethanol production instead of food production. That led to a full one-quarter of America's corn crop being used for ethanol, which meant there wasn't enough corn left over for food. That led to increased prices on a slew of things that rely on corn (like beef and chicken due to the shortage in corn feed). It drove the price of other crops higher as well because farmers began to plant as much corn as possible, at the expense of soybeans, wheat, and other grains.

But all of those problems cover only the subsidy side of corn ethanol - the functionality of it is what really makes this experiment a historic debacle.

Corn ethanol is 30% less efficient than gasoline and far less efficient than its sugar-based ethanol cousin. Translation: it takes more energy to make corn-based ethanol than other fuels. Not only that, but a University of Minnesota study found that corn ethanol is actually worse for the environment than regular gas. And our genius government to threw $3 billion at it in 2007, an amount that represented 76% of all renewable-energy tax credits.

[steelish]

I agree that the governemnts of the world will need near consensus and would benifit from taking the nessesary time after having entered extended consultation with multiple scientific sources as how best to solve the issues that will be facing our posterity and avoid seeking short term political gains.

In fact I have never said otherwise.

I agree with DuncanONeil...this will NEVER happen.

Let's say for instance that the extended consultation with multiple scientific sources has occurred. No matter what the heads of governments are told is the best course of action, it is virtually impossible that all of them will agree to the same plan of action. A smaller, third-world type nation is going to feel like its "big brothers" are taking advantage. Some countries will feel like the world powers (US, UK, China, Japan, etc) created the mess so why should they have to do ANYTHING to help clean it up? Heck, even the world powers won't agree on things.

[oww-that-hurt]

Here in Montana, USA, we have a place named Glacier National Park. The melting of the glaciers is well documented and studied here. It is estimated that by 2030 the last of them will gone, only to have a few small snow fields that are slow to melt before the next winter because they are in the shadows of the peaks.

Every indication is that the rapid increase in melting rates is due to global warming. Glacier core samples have accurate record keeping of atmospheric events. Geologic evidence of their withdrawal rates changing is documented by the lichen which grow at a certain rate and set up new 'house-keeping' on rocks as they become available. Since we humans began messing up the balance of things, the lichen are able to spread at a faster than ever rate because so much more bare rock is available to them.