Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

[ElFenix]

+1



AlGoreithms?!?! LOL, sweet a new looney left mathematics discipline.

it was a joke stephen colbert made a few weeks ago when al gore was on his and the daily show

 

[gsellis]

Of course the other shoe is dropping now that CRU's files and emails are on the net with some evidence of tampering and deletion of evidence. It will be an interesting few days.

 

[werepossum]

it was a joke stephen colbert made a few weeks ago when al gore was on his and the daily show

Dang, and I thought I made it up.

 

[OutHouse]

I know it is difficult to understand. The Sun is in a low sunspot cycle and our temps are mellowing out in some areas and dropping in others. Shocking I know. We orbit a giant fusion furnace and when it doesnt output as much we see drops, when it outputs more we see a rise.

ah! so global warming is not caused by man?

 

[gsellis]

ah! so global warming is not caused by man?

You spelled it wrong. Global warning is caused by Mann.

 

[OutHouse]

Gsellis, i dont get it

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Of course the other shoe is dropping now that CRU's files and emails are on the net with some evidence of tampering and deletion of evidence. It will be an interesting few days.

Holy shit!!!!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked
Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed?

This is my favorite from our alleged "scientists" at RealClimate:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

And this one:

Mopping up any awkward evidence about the IPCC’s latest report before Climate Audit gets hold of it?

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

And this one:

Ethics alert! (my bolding - and I’ve update this post with the full alleged email, now):

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
​

 

[gsellis]

Gsellis, i dont get it

See Doc Savage Fan's post ^

Mann created the hockey stick and Dr. Jones, Briffa, et al keep trying to reproduce it. There are comments of how they applied changes to formulas to fit the curve to their expectations... a serious faux pax in statistics. It is still being vetted. Over 160MB of data to go through. Looks more like an inside job than a hack. CRU has been denying FOIA requests and they appear to have been trying to cover their tracks too. Kind of reminds me of Enron.

 

[bfdd]

oh lordy just gets funnier and funnier each day.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a few more that are interesting:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.
Regards
David"

“The supplement is well done, and contains liberal web-links to the original data sources. As usual, one may disagree with some chapters, findings or hypothesis. But it seems at a first glance, that “inconvenient” results are not silenced. For instance the chapter on SST correctly relates that the 2007/2008 SST was much cooler than during the 2002-2006; the corresponding figure showing the World Ocean heat content does not use dirty tricks to hide the practically unchanging SST from 2005 on. Interestingly the subpolar North Atlantic, Labrador and Irminger Seas are cooling down (which would explain the ongoing recovery of the Arctic sea ice extent). I really recommend to download this BAMS supplement.”

 

[zephyrprime]

I've been following a lot of the global warming info. It seems like co2 does cause global warming but not a lot. So man made co2 is not very dangerous. The warming phenomena we've witnessed in the past few decades is probably a due to some unknown phenomena. This phenomena appears to have a cycle of 60 years and involves the sun somehow in an unknown way. However, the phenomena is NOT due to the well known 11 year sunspot cycle. The sunspot cycle has an effect on earth weather but it is too small to account for observed global warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[silverpig]

Wow. Interesting developments today to say the least.

It is a sad day for science if it is true, not because they were wrong, but because they ruined the trust the public has for scientists. Now it will take a long time for the public to warm up to scientific guidance again.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

IPCC findings indicate total anthropogenic warming of 1.6 W/m2 and negligible natural (solar) contribution of 0.12 W/m2.

Clouds cover approximately 65% of globe (annually averaged). Net cooling attributable to cloud cover is 30 W/m2. As you can imagine...variables that affect cloud cover are extremely important. It's been recently proven that cloud formation is significantly affected by solar winds and galactic cosmic ray flux changes as our solar system travels through the galaxy. CERN is in the process of researching details of this forcing mechanism which...BTW...the IPCC doesn't acknowledge along with the AGW crowd. Unfortunately, it appears that we're going to have to wait a year or two for the final results.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow. Interesting developments today to say the least.

It is a sad day for science if it is true, not because they were wrong, but because they ruined the trust the public has for scientists. Now it will take a long time for the public to warm up to scientific guidance again.

I wrote a short note to our friends at RealClimate a couple hours ago (I was civil). It appears that my post was "moderated" as it doesn't appear on the site. Somehow I'm not surprised.

 

[Lemon law]

The ever clueless TLC says, "The AGW adherents need to face facts. CO2 has had a linear rise for a couple of hundred years. The measured temps have not displayed a linear rise that corresponds with the increase of CO2 as would be expected if CO2 was the major influence they claim it to be."

If TLC were stuck in the the mid-1990's type of thinking, he might have a point, but atmospheric C02 is just one of the many factors that interact in a casual and complex manner regarding global warming.

Many of us who want to follow the global warming scientific debate know that the global warming is ONLY caused by CO2 argument was abandoned years ago, the only question is what Ostrich hole has TLC been sticking his head in for the past 10 years or so.

 

[silverpig]

Dr DoLittle (12:28:43) :
Not sure if this has been posted here previously, but here’s a link to where you can search the emails and data:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Also, my source tells me that all emails where his name is on are 10% real.

 

[silverpig]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

 

[PJABBER]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

Looks like RealClimate has gone offline. DoS or plain old overload.

Edit: Back online. Interesting spin they have there - George Soros is not to blame!

A real shitstorm.

(Pardon my French, I was watching Deadwood again.)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Read many, many of these emails...they sure do hate McIntyre.

 

[silverpig]

It's fun to just do searches on the emails to see what's going on.

 

[Jadow]

If I ever see Al Gore in person I'm going to ask him if he's found man bear pig.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The ever clueless TLC says, "The AGW adherents need to face facts. CO2 has had a linear rise for a couple of hundred years. The measured temps have not displayed a linear rise that corresponds with the increase of CO2 as would be expected if CO2 was the major influence they claim it to be."

If TLC were stuck in the the mid-1990's type of thinking, he might have a point, but atmospheric C02 is just one of the many factors that interact in a casual and complex manner regarding global warming.

Many of us who want to follow the global warming scientific debate know that the global warming is ONLY caused by CO2 argument was abandoned years ago, the only question is what Ostrich hole has TLC been sticking his head in for the past 10 years or so.

Really? Is that so? Well why does Al Gore focus on solely CO2? Why does the discussion of how to intervene against AGW solely center around regulating CO2 output? How about answering that?

Morons like you should avoid calling people clueless because you'll continue to end up looking even more moronic in the process, IF that's even possible when you're already wallowing in the bottom of the morons-r-us barrel.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

except that the heat given off by the sun hasn't changed, sunspots or no sunspots

TLC - read the article - the 'blind' test was over a 10 year period starting in 1998

I read it:

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

There is more than one study being cited here. Each indicates a slowdown or nearly complete halt in warming when looking at recent trends. At the very least the IPCC report has vastly overestimated the warming trend, again, which comes as no surprise.

 

[dmcowen674]

At the very least the IPCC report has vastly overestimated the warming trend, again, which comes as no surprise.

and the anti-science crowd is full of shit too.

The bottom line is that the planet has warmed, lost a lot of ice and the sea levels have risen. Anyone that lives on the coast can confirm this fact.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Its as I said. The last 2 years its been cooler were I live,also way more cloud cover. So I do agree, that warming seems to have stopped. But the caps are still melting.

I think this is like a perfect storm and were in the eye of the storm for now . But soon to be back into a even quiker warmig trend.

The evidance for warming still exist The Caps. SO even tho liers recieved ill gotten gains . The fact still remains were warming.