"Climategate" data not manipulated, Global Warming is real

[sMiLeYz]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment

 

[ShawnD1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment

You mean it's not an international conspiracy? You don't say.

 

[Ronstang]

Of course there is no data to support that the scientists did or did not manipulate the data....they deleted it all.

 

[Blackjack200]

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

I think this thread is a good place for Atreas and the others that have hammered these scientists non-stop to apologize. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Hacp]

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data."

So discarding data is now science is it? Nope we weren't concealing it, we were just discarding it! Even worse.

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment

MSNBC, fair and balanced.

 

[yllus]

Are there any articles that explain how they examined the data and came to the conclusion nothing was manipulated? Supposedly East Anglia has now published all of the data it used for public consumption but I can't find any mention of it myself.

If this is simply a panel of British MPs who have made a pronouncement of accuracy without actually digging into the subject, this is worthless. Elected ministers with no scientific background aren't exactly the people I look for when it comes to credibility.

I should also here quote the late, great Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[William Gaatjes]

Since they where so bold to leave out the influence of the sun and cosmic rays, and the influence of water vapour i do not trust them fully. I feel it is more of an agenda desperate to get people to realize that we have one earth and we have to treat mother earth good. That is a good thing, but when you tell people not to pollute , they will just keep doing it if they get rich of it. Hence this scheme to make people realize the world is coming to an end if we keep polluting. And that i believe is true.
If we keep polluting, things might go really bad one day because of unforeseen consequences.
A safe operating area must always be the number one rule.

It is always dangerous to quote wikipedia but i am trusting someone will correct this text :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#Water_vapor_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Approximately 99.13% of it is contained in the troposphere. The condensation of water vapor to the liquid or ice phase is responsible for clouds, rain, snow, and other precipitation, all of which count among the most significant elements of what we experience as weather. Less obviously, the latent heat of vaporization, which is released to the atmosphere whenever condensation occurs, is one of the most important terms in the atmospheric energy budget on both local and global scales. For example, latent heat release in atmospheric convection is directly responsible for powering destructive storms such as tropical cyclones and severe thunderstorms. Water vapor is also the most potent greenhouse gas owing to the presence of the hydroxyl bond which absorbs strongly in the infra-red region of the light spectrum. Because the water vapor content of the atmosphere will increase in response to warmer temperatures, there is a water vapor feedback is expected to amplify the climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. It is less clear how cloudiness would respond to a warming climate; depending on the nature of the response, clouds could either further amplify or partly mitigate warming from long-lived greenhouse gases.

Fog and clouds form through condensation around cloud condensation nuclei. In the absence of nuclei, condensation will only occur at much lower temperatures. Under persistent condensation or deposition, cloud droplets or snowflakes form, which precipitate when they reach a critical mass.

Increasing stratospheric water vapor at Boulder, Colorado.

The average residence time of water molecules in the troposphere is about 10 days. Water depleted by precipitation is replenished by evaporation from the seas, lakes, rivers and the transpiration of plants, and other biological and geological processes.

Atmospheric water vapor content is expressed using various measures. These include vapor pressure, specific humidity, mixing ratio, dew point temperature, and relative humidity. The annual mean global concentration of water vapor would yield about 25 mm of liquid water over the entire surface of the Earth if it were to instantly fall as rain. The mean annual precipitation for the planet is about 1 meter, which indicates a rapid turnover of water in the air - on average, the residence time of a water vapor molecule in the atmosphere is about 9 to 10 days.

The abundance of gases emitted by volcanoes varies considerably from volcano to volcano. However, water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions during a subaerial eruption.

They mention greenhouse gases, but what i know is that in a greenhouse it is always very humid. Afcourse one wants to increase the carbon dioxide in a greenhouse because carbon dioxide is part of a plants diet. i have always wondered what the spectral absorption and reflection is of carbon dioxide. Does anybody know ?

 

[rudder]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2007/20070822130511.aspx
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_ne...books-on-global-warming-temperature-data.aspx
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html

NASA data was suspect years ago. I think if you kept using some of that data when you knew it was faulty... that is the same as manipulating data.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not just manipulating data, but spreading lies based off that data. Examples being their self proclaimed "warmest decade ever" and all their rankings for months and years.

 

[Blackjack200]

I should also here quote the late, great Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Except that there's nothing extraordinary about the claim that dumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the planet to get hotter. Carl Sagan would be the first to say that that's common fucking sense.

 

[JSt0rm]

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data."

So discarding data is now science is it? Nope we weren't concealing it, we were just discarding it! Even worse.

 

[JS80]

Except that there's nothing extraordinary about the claim that dumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the planet to get hotter. Carl Sagan would be the first to say that that's common fucking sense.

Volcanoes emit CO2 also, we should start taxing Earth.

 

[ayabe]

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data."

So discarding data is now science is it? Nope we weren't concealing it, we were just discarding it! Even worse.

If you knew anything about statistics you would know that data is excluded all the time, normally at the very top and the very bottom to varying degrees depending on the model and what you're looking at.

But please continue blathering, your feelings do count for something.

 

[Blackjack200]

Volcanoes emit CO2 also, we should start taxing Earth.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Do you ever have anything to bring to the table?

 

[woolfe9999]

MSNBC, fair and balanced.

Given the number of Foxnews and UK Daily Mail articles that has been linked here by skeptics, this objection is really a hoot.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html

- wolf

 

[heyheybooboo]

Since they where so bold to leave out the influence of the sun and cosmic rays, and the influence of water vapour i do not trust them fully. ...

.... i have always wondered what the spectral absorption and reflection is of carbon dioxide. Does anybody know ?

I'm not the 'expert' but my understanding is climate modeling takes into account that 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.

And there is a serious rub. The rate of pan evaporation is declining so data should indicate a systemic cooling but temps continue to rise. After 9/11 when planes were grounded they even studied the water vapor effects of jet contrails.

These studies factor the Sun, too. Scientists are designing models related to global dimming and "brightening". They generate data related to pollutant loading in the atmosphere and the 'cosmic' effect as you call it.

My understanding (always questionable) is that a primary concern in climate change is centered around particulate pollution in the atmosphere that is reflecting greater amounts of sunlight back into space but, once again, temps continue to rise. So ...

Reducing particulate (and aerosol) pollution will drive even greater increases in surface temps.

I now return this thread to its stimulating debate





--

 

[MotF Bane]

Given the number of Foxnews and UK Daily Mail articles that has been linked here by skeptics, this objection is really a hoot.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html

- wolf

Yet when someone links Fox, half the posts will end up being "FAUX NEWS" and other protests to the effect of "not reading that".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"colloquial terms"...that's certainly an interesting way to say intentionally mislead. Seriously...what utter bullshit.

 

[GoPackGo]

Yeah....it was really investigated...this is just more coverup

 

[Blackjack200]

"colloquial terms"...that's certainly an interesting way to say intentionally mislead. Seriously...what utter bullshit.

lol. DSF in unconviced. I'm unsurprised

Yeah....it was really investigated...this is just more coverup

Yeah, just like that 9/11 conspiracy, moon landings and JFK. It's all just a massive conspiracy. We're lucky to have rational skeptics like yourself to save us from all those hateful, deceitful scientists.

 

[yllus]

Except that there's nothing extraordinary about the claim that dumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the planet to get hotter. Carl Sagan would be the first to say that that's common fucking sense.

Oh, it's that simple? Care to explain then why the rise and fall of global temperatures don't line up exactly with the rise of CO2 output?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. DSF in unconviced. I'm unsurprised



Yeah, just like that 9/11 conspiracy, moon landings and JFK. It's all just a massive conspiracy. We're lucky to have rational skeptics like yourself to save us from all those hateful, deceitful scientists.

What happened is obvious...Jones and company intentionally left out all 'inconvenient' post-1960 tree ring proxy data. "Hide the decline" meant exactly that...."colloquial terms" my ass. Total bullshit.

 

[Hacp]

If you knew anything about statistics you would know that data is excluded all the time, normally at the very top and the very bottom to varying degrees depending on the model and what you're looking at.

But please continue blathering, your feelings do count for something.

I know enough to see that grafting data to fit the expected result is not science.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh, it's that simple? Care to explain then why the rise and fall of global temperatures don't line up exactly with the rise of CO2 output?

No. They line up close enough for my satisfaction. I don't care if they line up exactly or not.