Climategate

[Thorne]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.

I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[DuncanONeil]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?

I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.


Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.


I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[Thorne]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?

If you watched the video I posted you would see that the "lack" of warming since 1995 is not quite accurate. There has been slight warming, but it's been at such a slow rate that it is outside the statistically significant values. If I'm correct in my interpretation, that means that they can't say for sure that there has been warming, but they can't say for sure that there hasn't been, either.

But one thing to remember is that the solar sunspot cycle was declining for about the last 8 years, which should have meant cooling temperatures. And for the last 2-3 years there has been virtually no sunspot activity at all, suggesting even more cooling of the atmosphere. Yet the global temps have remained stable, or possibly risen slightly. Now that the sunspot cycle has restarted we should start seeing higher temperatures over the next 5-7 years. Just how high is anybody's guess.

[leo9]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

[DuncanONeil]

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

What is the arbitrary data point 0.0?
Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

[leo9]

Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

[leo9]

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

Oh, right, I forgot... it's by meteorologists... can't be trusted. Anyone who knows about the subject is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.

[DuncanONeil]

Oh, right, I forgot... it's by meteorologists... can't be trusted. Anyone who knows about the subject is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.

Low blow! I never even suggested such a thing.

[DuncanONeil]

You made an assumption about what I looked at.
In case you came up with a solid source I checked the below reference link. From there I went to four other links, two of which claiming to be data, and have the same result. The information has already been massaged and there is a reference point of 0.0 that has no meaning.
Therefore we remain in the same place accepting as data the material that someone else has decided is sufficient to prove their point.

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html