• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
shira said:
Yes what? That the intellects of the climate-deniers are mush?

And since you've made an allegation about my principles, please produce evidence to back it up: Show where I've supported the tactics of ANYONE - left, right, or in between - who engages in quote-mining. I'm sure your evidence is of the same quality as mine that you enjoy sex with farm animals.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you shouldn't of targeted groups that most people would disagree with when you said "quote-mining" and instead of just said "the shady practices different groups participate in." You don't do yourself any favors when you only target the people you disagree with when the people you do agree with do similar practices.
 
shira said:
Where do you get from the alleged misconduct of a handful of scientists to "the whole thing has been a ruse?" Are you really this stupid?
Click to expand...



apparently your gullible enough to buy it all hook,line and sinker. but we all know liberals aren't supposed to be judged by true evidence or results just their good intentions.
 
shira said:
Since the start of the industrial revolution, C02 levels have increased by 40%. It's highly unlikely that this increase - over such a short time span - is due to anything other than mankind's behavior. The percentage of C02 as a total of greenhouse gases is irrelevant. What's far more important is C02's contribution to the greenhouse effect:
Click to expand...

Did man cause the CO2 levels to climb to approx 350 PPM 12,000 years ago, when the sea level rose approx. 110 feet because of global warming?
 
Ozoned said:
Why is it highly unlikely that this increase - over such a short time span - is due to anything other than mankind's behavior?
Click to expand...

Protip: CO2 levels were not 350ppm 12000 years ago. Perhaps >1 million years(edit: make that approx 120,000) ago, but not 12000.
 
When every 'solution' to Global Warming seems to involve transferring wealth from one group and giving it to another - I certainly have every right to question the motives of the people making the claim.

Even IF we are truly killing the planet, and its death is going to happen shortly, the left is causing more harm than good by attemping to treat GW as an excuse to transfer wealth.
 
Ozoned said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene

12,000 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

350 ppm during the early Holocene
Click to expand...

"Measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in ancient air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores show that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration has historically been between 275 and 285 ppmv during the Holocene epoch (9,000 BCE onwards), but started rising sharply at the beginning of the nineteenth centuryHowever, analyses of stomatal frequency in tree leaves indicate that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration may have reached 320 ppmv during the Medieval Warm Period (800–1300 CE) and 350 ppmv during the early Holocene.[9][10]"

Ok, you might be correct.
 
werepossum said:
Three quick points. First, I don't think anyone outside of wikipedia or RealClimate believes anthropogenic CO2 increases are anywhere near 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Remember that the beginning of the industrial revolution also coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age (unless you're one of the true zealots who has revised out the Little Ice Age to make Mann's hockey stick graph work) and in particular an end to the especially bitter part of the Little Ice Age in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Remember that CO2 naturally lags temperature (plants respond more slowly to temperature increases than do animals) and thus CO2 would be expected to increase as the LIA ends.
Click to expand...

It must be satisfying to be a true believer in climate denial. Just a little inconvenient point: Over the past 2.1 million years, over cycles of ice ages and re-warming, C02 levels haven't approached the current levels. In fact, the average C02 level during the warm periods between ice ages of the past has on average been almost 40% lower than during the current period.

If warming following the little ice age is the reason for the 40% increase in C02 levels, then why didn't similar huge increases occur after past ice ages? The fact is, you can't justify your claim. You just choose to believe it.


Second, the greenhouse effect is subject to saturation and scattering. To truly relate the greenhouse effect linearly to CO2 concentration, one would have to show that all the available radiation in the spectra affected are not absorbed out. To show that a near-linear effect is occurring, one needs to show that a linear amount of radiation is being trapped and converted to heat in the atmosphere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the atmosphere has had little of the measured temperature increase; rather, the measured temperature increase has been largely in the oceans and on the land (and especially so around big cities, which are known heat sinks.)
Click to expand...
It's so interesting to see how you blithely pass this off as though you know what you're talking about. First of all, it's not the greenhouse effect that's subject to saturation, it's the C02 level itself: There's some theoretical C02 level at which the atmosphere won't hold any more. But that point obviously hasn't been reached: C02 levels are increasing at an ever-increasing rate. If we were approaching the C02 saturation point, we'd expect to see C02 levels leveling off.

Perhaps what you intended to say was that as C02 levels increase, the marginal greenhouse effect of each additional C02 molecule is theorized to be less than that of the previous molecule. The current atmospheric models assume that the the greenhouse effect is proportional to the log of the C02 concentration. Thus, the models assume that a doubling of C02 concentration leads to a 30% increase in the greenhouse effect of the C02.

As to scattering, I'm not sure why you're relating that to C02. On other planets, C02 in ice form is believed to cause atmospheric scattering of thermal radiation. But dry ice isn't a factor here on earth.

Maybe your overall point is that a 40% increase in C02 isn't the same as a 40% increase in the greenhouse effect of the additional C02. That various factors reduce the effect of increasing C02 concentrations. That's a fair point. But note that atmospheric models attempt to take these factors into account, yet they still show significant warming due to human activity. Try as you might, you're not going to get that 40% increase down to no effect at all.

Third, the fluctuations in temperature and CO2 are larger than the anthropogenic contributions, even assuming worst case. Assuming that anthropogenic CO2 production and associated temperature increases will cause catastrophe when natural oscillations did not assumes that there is something about manmade sources that make it not assimilate. To date, no such mechanism has been described, much less proven in repeatable studies.
Click to expand...
The bolded statement is like saying that the total mass of living organisms (including humanity) on earth is greater than the total mass of humanity. Or that the total number of people with H1N1 influenza in Maryland is less than the total number of people with H1N1 influenza in the United Sates. Well duh! Why would you even make such a statement?

Temperature fluctuation is the SUM of all contributors. If mankind's actions add 1 degree of warming, then that means that that 1 degree will ride on top of the other effects: A 25 (Celsius) degree day absent humanity becomes a 26-degree day with humanity. A minus 40-degree day becomes a minum 39-degree day.

Remember, climatologists aren't predicting that we'll experience 20 degree increases in average temperature. The prediction is that if nothing is done to curb C02 levels, global temperatures in 2050 will on average increase by 1.0 degrees Celsius. 1 degree.

I think what continually boggles the climate-denial crowd is that seemingly small changes can be catastrophic. The deniers argue from emotion rather than science. They think small temperature changes - and small percentages - don't mean anything.
 
Climate-denial crowd? So now we deny the climate? I don't really see anyone denying that the climate is changing I see people questioning that we're the major cause.

Shira, you realize you're not much different than a religious zealot right? With the way you preach and have so much "faith" in the scientists.
 
shira said:
It must be satisfying to be a true believer in climate denial. Just a little inconvenient point: Over the past 2.1 million years, over cycles of ice ages and re-warming, C02 levels haven't approached the current levels. In fact, the average C02 level during the warm periods between ice ages of the past has on average been almost 40% lower than during the current period.

If warming following the little ice age is the reason for the 40% increase in C02 levels, then why didn't similar huge increases occur after past ice ages? The fact is, you can't justify your claim. You just choose to believe it.


It's so interesting to see how you blithely pass this off as though you know what you're talking about. First of all, it's not the greenhouse effect that's subject to saturation, it's the C02 level itself: There's some theoretical C02 level at which the atmosphere won't hold any more. But that point obviously hasn't been reached: C02 levels are increasing at an ever-increasing rate. If we were approaching the C02 saturation point, we'd expect to see C02 levels leveling off.

Perhaps what you intended to say was that as C02 levels increase, the marginal greenhouse effect of each additional C02 molecule is theorized to be less than that of the previous molecule. The current atmospheric models assume that the the greenhouse effect is proportional to the log of the C02 concentration. Thus, the models assume that a doubling of C02 concentration leads to a 30% increase in the greenhouse effect of the C02.

As to scattering, I'm not sure why you're relating that to C02. On other planets, C02 in ice form is believed to cause atmospheric scattering of thermal radiation. But dry ice isn't a factor here on earth.

Maybe your overall point is that a 40% increase in C02 isn't the same as a 40% increase in the greenhouse effect of the additional C02. That various factors reduce the effect of increasing C02 concentrations. That's a fair point. But note that atmospheric models attempt to take these factors into account, yet they still show significant warming due to human activity. Try as you might, you're not going to get that 40% increase down to no effect at all.

The bolded statement is like saying that the total mass of living organisms (including humanity) on earth is greater than the total mass of humanity. Or that the total number of people with H1N1 influenza in Maryland is less than the total number of people with H1N1 influenza in the United Sates. Well duh! Why would you even make such a statement?

Temperature fluctuation is the SUM of all contributors. If mankind's actions add 1 degree of warming, then that means that that 1 degree will ride on top of the other effects: A 25 (Celsius) degree day absent humanity becomes a 26-degree day with humanity. A minus 40-degree day becomes a minum 39-degree day.

Remember, climatologists aren't predicting that we'll experience 20 degree increases in average temperature. The prediction is that if nothing is done to curb C02 levels, global temperatures in 2050 will on average increase by 1.0 degrees Celsius. 1 degree.

I think what continually boggles the climate-denial crowd is that seemingly small changes can be catastrophic. The deniers argue from emotion rather than science. They think small temperature changes - and small percentages - don't mean anything.
Click to expand...
I am fairly certain that humanity can retreat from a 16" increase in sea-levels over the next 100 years.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.


The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
 
I think our scientists are gathering data that extrapolates to where they suggest IF they are correct in what they understand to be the cause... The LunarRay Conjecture, however, assigns the cause to the Sun's activity and the Earth's position along with more spiky results coming from heavenly bodies visiting Earth, emitted volcanic activity and the effect of plate tectonics over massive magma chambers along with magma growth in the near surface areas...
To say human kind can effect climate change is probably right but so is the weather a factor and the weather itself seems to wax and wane while humans push out more and more bad stuff...
But, ah well... I like windmills and nuclear plants and green cars.. mainly so I can breathe.. so that aspect is fine by me..
 
LunarRay said:
I think our scientists are gathering data that extrapolates to where they suggest IF they are correct in what they understand to be the cause... The LunarRay Conjecture, however, assigns the cause to the Sun's activity and the Earth's position along with more spiky results coming from heavenly bodies visiting Earth, emitted volcanic activity and the effect of plate tectonics over massive magma chambers along with magma growth in the near surface areas...
To say human kind can effect climate change is probably right but so is the weather a factor and the weather itself seems to wax and wane while humans push out more and more bad stuff...
But, ah well... I like windmills and nuclear plants and green cars.. mainly so I can breathe.. so that aspect is fine by me..
Click to expand...


it's obvious from the emails they have no interest in understanding the cause but rather furthering support for a desired outcome to support a political agenda. Its fraud operating under the facade of science. Nearly all of these "scientists" are public employees or funded by taxpayer revenue. Criminal culpability and collusion to defraud the public is evident.
 
IGBT said:
it's obvious from the emails they have no interest in understanding the cause but rather furthering support for a desired outcome to support a political agenda. Its fraud operating under the facade of science. Nearly all of these "scientists" are public employees or funded by taxpayer revenue. Criminal culpability and collusion to defraud the public is evident.
Click to expand...

There is something to be said about 'Pleasing the Master'... When your bread is buttered by a government decision maker independent thought seems to take a back seat to finding support for the underlying agenda. I'm not saying that is what always happens but I will opine that it seems to always provide the scientific opinion that the government in power wishes to pursue.

Awhile back I said I'd support the science that is not supported by the government. It seems to me that IF there is opposing views it will not be found within govenment nor from those who get paid to provide evidence...
Someone once said "It is easy to provide bias into science when your paycheck depends on not providing science over one's bias"... something like that.. or they should have said that...
 
LunarRay said:
There is something to be said about 'Pleasing the Master'... When your bread is buttered by a government decision maker independent thought seems to take a back seat to finding support for the underlying agenda. I'm not saying that is what always happens but I will opine that it seems to always provide the scientific opinion that the government in power wishes to pursue.

Awhile back I said I'd support the science that is not supported by the government. It seems to me that IF there is opposing views it will not be found within govenment nor from those who get paid to provide evidence...
Someone once said "It is easy to provide bias into science when your paycheck depends on not providing science over one's bias"... something like that.. or they should have said that...
Click to expand...

it's all a terrible waste of limited research funds. the money could be better spent on REAL research that would improve the human condition (cancer research) and genuine problem solving (battery storage). The ClimateGate Hoax has been a black hole for research dollars and all we have to show for it is a paradigm and culture of fraud and corruption in the science community. I've come to the conclusion that phd for too many means piled high and deeper.
 
None of this really matters in the end. We will know in 50-70 years time or not. Let's say anthropomorphic global warming is real. It's not like the global economies will ever agree on the kind of steps really necessary to prevent a disaster. And if it isn't real well then we will have egg on our faces. Either way it's largely a wait and see game. The global warming deniers will never be swayed anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top