Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

a reply to: Cynic
If someone wants to make a point in an argument and claim it as fact, that someone is supposed to provide supporting evidence.
A link to a source supporting the claim is usually sufficient.
A link to an internet search is not.

This is how discussion in a more scientific environment proceeds. Accusing people of laziness or allegiance to a cause because they do not know where someone is getting some information is ridiculous.

I've seen individuals do this before, and it's getting tiresome. You yourself have made a claim without a backing evidence. When asked, it seems as if you are now calling people names, which is not productive.

originally posted by: links234


Can you point me to any legitimate investigations that found otherwise? A blogger or a reporter misquoting an internal email isn't a legitimate investigation. Neither should it be taken as fact.

One of the problems here is that people like you seem to think that having the same organizations that were in the scandal would give us an unbiased investigation, when they will lose a lot if there was admission of wrongdoing...

Second, we can even read the emails ourselves, and these tricks, and the data manipulation, the deletion of raw data, etc that plagued Climategate we have found to also appear in other related studies. Such as the claim that the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035, and the IPCC scientists involved told us that they knew the data was false, but they wanted to include it to push a political agenda... Then we also have the fact that these agencies did the same with the Chinese data, and the Russian data, manipulating the results by not using a large percentage of the data stations which did not back the AGW claim.

So, it's not like we only have the climategate scandal... These people were in the middle of several scandals by which they manipulated the data, deleted raw data, or hid it, etc, etc.

When are people like you going to stop trying to excuse the obvious?...

originally posted by: links234

That's not a fact, I've told you twice now. There's no data to delete. The data used for the models was aggregate data from the thousands of global independent sites.

Yes there was... Roger Pielke Jr was one of the scientists who discovered that they had deleted the raw data.

originally posted by: links234
You refuse to accept proof given to you. Is there anything that would change your mind?

You are not giving any proof, you just make excuses after excuses because you do not want to accept the facts. You want people to think "there was nothing wrong in the climagate scandal" because the very same people who were part of the scandal have proclaim "nothing wrong was done"?"...

Oh and btw, now it seems that by 2100 we are going to have to worry about Global COOLING.

Oxford Journals
Science & Mathematics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Volume 44, Issue 5
Pp. 5.20-5.22.

Solar activity levels in 2100

Mark A Clilverd,
Ellen Clarke,
Henry Rishbeth,
Toby D G Clark and
Thomas Ulich


+
Author Affiliations
British Antarctic Survey (NERC), Cambridge, UK
British Geological Survey (NERC), Edinburgh, UK
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
British Geological Survey (NERC), Edinburgh, UK (now at ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany)
Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland





Next Section

Abstract

We consider the likely levels of solar activity in 2100 by analysing the previous history of long-term solar and geomagnetic activity indices. We make use of superposed periods of similar variations in atmospheric cosmogenic radiocarbon that have occurred during the last 11 000 years, as derived from various proxies such as tree rings. This leads us to conclude that solar activity is peaking at about the present epoch, and we expect solar activity in 2100 to resemble that in 1900 when a small minimum in solar activity took place, rather than increasing as has occurred in the last 100 years. The occurrence of major geomagnetic storms will decline to about one-third of the present level.



Previous Section

Next Section

Increasingly we need to look forward over timescales of 25, 50 and 100 years to evaluate the projected changes in the Earth's environmental system, particularly those driven by natural causes (e.g. solar and volcanic) and anthropogenic influences. These have been described by the International Panel on Climate Change in the Third Assessment Report, published in 2001. Carbon dioxide concentrations, climate, and globally averaged sea levels are all projected to increase under IPCC emission scenarios. Solar activity levels are also expected to change with timescales of 100 years and the impact of this on climate remains largely uncertain. This work aims to estimate the likely trend of solar activity over the next 100 years.

A long-term index of geomagnetic activity has been retrospectively calculated from 1868 (Mayaud 1972). It is the aa index, expressed in nanotesla (nT), which is derived from the 3-hourly K indices of two near-antipodal stations. Previous workers have pointed out an increasing trend in the aa index (Feynman and Crooker 1978, Cliver et al. 1998). An analysis of the occurrence rate of magnetic storms was undertaken for the whole data set from 1868 by Clilverd et al. (1998, 2002), who found an increasing trend linked to solar activity rather than to instrumental or ionospheric changes.
...
Summary

We have used three different solar activity proxies - the sunspot number, the geomagnetic aa index, and the variation of atmospheric radiocarbon, Δ14C- to investigate the likely variation of solar activity in the next 100 years. Most direct indicators of solar activity, such as sunspot number, are short-lived relative to Δ14C. Detailed geomagnetic measurements are restricted to even more recent times. Although the Δ14C time series is more than long enough for trend analysis, measurements in recent decades are contaminated by anthropogenic effects and simple extrapolation is not possible. By combining all three proxies we have been able to extend the more detailed recent measurements and look for periods of similar activity variations that have taken place several Hallstatt cycles ago.

We have shown that periods of significant decreases in solar activity such as the Maunder Minimum tend to occur periodically throughout the Δ14C time series. By superposing these minima we can see that solar activity can be repeatable especially during the recovery phase of the deepest events. As the last of these deep minima was in 1700 we can consider the present time to be part of the recovery phase and thus likely to produce repeatable activity levels for the near future. Analysis of the last four Hallstatt cycles indicates that current solar activity levels have returned to near normal historical levels and are likely to return in the next century to their levels of about 1900. At that time there were fewer geomagnetic storms and the heliospheric magnetic field was about half its present strength (Lockwood et al. 1999) and, as a result, cosmic-ray fluxes incident on the Earth were 15% higher than now (Lockwood 2003).

The prediction of a decrease in solar activity over the next 100 years or so may well have an impact on the debate concerning the linkage between Sun and climate. Decreasing activity should have wide impacts, such as reducing the solar contribution to the increase of land surface temperature (Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991, Tett et al. 1999) and reducing the levels of cloud cover (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Udelhofen and Cess 2001).

Clearly this work is speculative, as it relies on the idea that the Sun shows regular cycles of activity on timescales of 1000-10 000 years. However, the technique of superposed epoch analysis is well grounded. What message can we take away? We conclude that solar forcing of the Earth's environmental system will not increase in the same way as it has during the previous 100 years. This should be taken into account when considering possible anthropogenic changes. Time will tell!

astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org...

a reply to: Phage

Thats what happens when they quote mine for an argument Phage!

Cut and paste in Haste.

Loses the dabate!

Love your work brother!

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Here, let me help you with that...

Evidence of Climate Data Tampering

Again, linking to an internet search to backup a claim is phenomenally lazy.

Again???

As if to say I have linked to an internet search before to backup a claim I've made? LOL LOL

You have me mistaken for someone else - I do not point to internet searches to back up anything I say.

My posts always contain direct source links and unless you can show otherwise (I dare you to try), you are a troll.

What are you, 12?

Maybe you should look at the context of the thread and that particular discussion point before making a dumb assumption that makes you look like an immature child who just got their lollipop taken... the link I sent was in complete jest as a way to show someone how easy it is to Google something themselves on that specific subject since the evidence is more than abundant without having to list each and every source that a simple Google search can provide. Even the poster I replied to thought it was funny!

In other words, take some damn initiative to go look up the information on both sides of the argument.

That's why the site I linked to is called - "Let Me Google That For You"...

And NOT "GOOGLE".

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Taking such a comment so personally isn't what I meant. I've just seen people do it before, and I didn't say you specifically did it before, though I suppose it wasn't entirely clear.

However, this is essentially a link to a search:

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Here, let me help you with that...

Evidence of Climate Data Tampering

This takes you to a site that fills in a Google search and then redirects to that Google search, therefore it's essentially equivalent to linking to a Google search. Claiming otherwise and that you are offended at such an allegation is preposterous.

I'm still waiting for a reply from you, but I'm not holding my breath. It is shameful that certain people jump to slander and lies, then refuse to apologize when called out on it.

originally posted by: jrod


Awesome dude.

Because of your great debating skills the rising CO2 and CH4 levels are now no longer a concern. Stopping deforestation can not happen because it is bad for the economy.

Rapa Nui is nothing but a myth

Hold your horses there... you are going off tangent once again. Now you try to blame me for deforestation and CH4?...... First of all, all the "caps and trade" schemes that are being put in place and used are not going to stop "deforestation" and the "caps and trade" only deal with CO2... These policies and taxes are only making the rich richer meanwhile the real toxic pollutants keep being released...

About deforestation, in case you didn't know, there are programs in place in which areas that are used to harvest wood are regrown again by planting new trees in those areas.

For example...Mississippi Forest Landowners Harvest and Regrow Timber "Illegal deforestation" is the real problem..

Second of all, that's without going into the fact that your whole argument has been around only blaming CO2...

BTW, my "debating skills" seem to be much better than yours more so since you seem to agree and disagree with yourself all the time and can never present a logical argument to defend your ramblings...

And what the hell does "Rapa Nui" have to do with this discussion?... It just seems to be more of your illogical ramblings to be sure...

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Cynic

That's simply not true. If it's so public, show me the evidence.

...

It has been shown in this thread and others as well in response to you asking for such evidence, but people like you only continue to try to ignore or dismiss these facts because that's all you can do...

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim
Updated 17:21 11 January 2010 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide



Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

High probability

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."



The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.

'Disturbing' prediction

The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.
...

www.newscientist.com...

A scientific report made by the IPCC which included data that was not only highly speculative but many glaciologists who have been studying the Himalayan glaciers say there "is no sign of abnormal retreat in the Himalayas"?...

This is essentially a lie, based from a false claim which was then "extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas..."

BTW, as to the "climategate scandal" tell me, how many "biased experts" do you need for you to understand statements made in the emails such as...

Climategate: What we've learned so far

IPA REVIEW ARTICLE

| Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson


The exposure of thousands of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is one of the biggest developments in the climate change debate for the last ten years.

The emails-now dubbed ‘Climategate'-reveal a pattern of behaviour. These emails describe attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following freedom of information requests, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, and manipulation of results.

But more than anything this illustrates how politicised, manipulated and ultimately uncertain much of the global warming science is.

Statements suggesting ‘the science is settled' can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mick Kelly (a reader with the CRU) to Phil Jones (director of the CRU) dated October 26, 2008, we find this gem, ‘I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.' While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: ‘The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant.' Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (and a lead author of the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change), writes on 12 October 2009 that ‘we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.' Trenberth went on to argue in a 2009 paper in Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability that it is not enough to claim that natural variability accounts for the lack of warming in recent years-something specific must cause the decline.

...

link

Or...

...
But why then find a 2005 email from Phil Jones, which states: ‘If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone'?

The latest development is that the CRU have promised to make their data available-but we know that a lot of the historical raw data has been thrown away. This makes reconstruction and audit of the CRU research much more difficult. It is going to be impossible to reconstruct an unbiased temperature record based on instrumental observations.
...

link

a reply to: 1947boomer

If such a molecule were isolated in free space, it would spontaneously transition back to the ground state by re-emitting the photon. The time constant for decay back down to the original energy state is about 1 nanosecond.

However, in a body of gas, the molecules are moving around with a substantial translational velocity and bumping into each other all the time. In the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, the mean time interval for collisions between gas molecules is around 1/5 of a nanosecond, so you can see that after 1 nanosecond, the originally excited molecule would have undergone multiple collisions.

Thank you for that. I have looked for the reemission rate for hours I think.

The energy absorbed by the CO2 is transferred by collisions into non-polar molecules. Got it.