HARRY_READ_ME: New bombshell document on global warming leaked!

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

Well, I'm glad that you took a more constructive approach to this as well. And yes, I meant Carbon Dioxide CO2. However, Carbon Monoxide is a pretty nasty element all in itself.

Now as far as the statement I made about a 50% reduction due to oil spills. The point was to make someone/anyone think about these possibilities by mentioning the worst case scenario. Obviously this isn't the case, however, there have been some ecological disasters recently (Australia) that have caused some major damage.

And, yes...some of my posts may have been childish before in this thread, but, it was childish for a specific reason. If you go back and read my original post that started this, Electric Universe initiated our conversation with childishness. I corrected him, told him to do his own research as opposed to begging for mine so that he could simply ignore it or say that it wasn't "reputable." He falls into a huge category of people here on ATS. They scan the boards to create conflict. They find an issue that they are barely familiar with and take the side of the opposing team. After this, they find someone that they feel that they can dominate and beg for proof, even though they have no intentions of reviewing "said proof" (Electric Universe proved this theory by his response time between the intervals of my posts) and then they adamantly defend their position (ego) regardless of the information that contradicts it. As a matter of fact, Electric Universe didn't provide any supporting evidence for his argument, after he claimed that I didn't have any.

So, my point was to show him that there are people out there that can stoop to his level (of where he feels most comfortable) and still school him all day long on his home turf. No one else really saw that until they did what I had asked of them, and that's go back and read where this all began. That way you can understand the method to my behavior.

And I didn't say that oil spills "Cause Global Warming." I said that it was a contributing factor. And if you read my original post, oil spills were one of three things that I mentioned. People latched onto the oil spill thing as if it were the only thing that I brought up.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by rnaa

Continuing to spout off (pun intended) about water being a major GHG is completely unworthy of any serious argument.

Obviously when an AGW zombie doesn't like for people to show that water vapor is more potent than CO2 as a ghg, they resort to claiming "it doesn't matter."

What doesn't matter is your incoherent ramblings.

Water vapor doesn't just become rain drops and stays in the oceans....with increased warming caused by the activity of the Sun water vapor increases naturally causing even more warming, but CO2 ghg effect is neglegible.

I guess you don't understand the fact that water vapor constitutes 95% to 98% of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere. Such a fact is too much for an AGW zombie like yourself, hence you have to claim water vapor doesn't matter...

People like you have no idea how to make a coherent, intelligent argument.

Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns

ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2009) — Here’s yet another reason to hate humidity: it expands global warming, says a Texas A&M University professor.

Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences who specializes in research on climate, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century.

“Its a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean higher humidity, which in turn leads to even more warming,” Dessler explains.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by rnaa
Please go study up on some basic physical chemistry. Your local community college should be able to accommodate you.

Wow, really?... When someone makes such a claim it is because they are probably high school drop outs, so maybe you should take your own advice.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by phrig


That's a good one. Thanks for sharing that with us.

A star for you for providing that hilarious link.

Originally posted by john124

As I said - you haven't got very far, and you never will with that kind of attitude. I've seen you post so many comments on ATS about this issue, much more than the average user such as myself, and almost every post is an attack on climate science or denials! When do you get the time to actually study the science of global warming?!

I have done more research about Climate Change than you ever will, and for certainly I have posted more "peer reviewed research" that supports my claims, and all you have done is make a claim that "some of the emails could be doctored" without providing any evidence for this...

You can search my posts if you like... i have even given a link to more than 450 "peer reviewed research papers" that refute the AGW claims...

There are also many other members who have posted several threads with "peer reviewed research" that shows AGW is a defunct religion. But keep believing in it all you want. i don't care what you, and others like you do, I care about searching, and showing the truth, not "making incoherent and wild claims without any proof."

Originally posted by john124
Do you prefer to fantasise over people's personal emails, rather than be a scientist? as you pretend to know-it-all!

You made the claims, fantasizing, that there "could be doctored emails" because you don't like the truth.

BTW, I have never claimed to 'know it all" but again this is a tactic that the AGW zombies like to throw out once in a while when they don't like when people are showing the truth about the AGW religion...

[edit on 27-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by mushibrain


Good link, thank you for sharing that with us.

Some people don't seem to understand that computer models can show anything that those with an agenda want.

If you create a program in which you tell the computer that with increased CO2, temperatures will increase, that's what the computer program will do, even when it is not true.

GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are flawed to a fault, and several peer reviewed research work has shown this.

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...



[edit on 27-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You know, after reviewing all the posts in this thread, it seems that you don't care about the ATS rules of keeping things civil. I notice how you keep calling people names and this only serves to weaken any information you may bring forth, and it also serves to sour the entire thread, potentially annoying others and keeping them from participating. I took the time to put this thread out there, and have taken time to respond to everyone who addressed comments to me. I would appreciate you following the ATS rules. If you continue to call names and cast personal dispersions, I am feeling it would be in order to bring all this to the ATS moderator's attention, and leave it up to them as to whether they want to censure your behavior or not. I really do think you should consider cooling your rhetoric and name-calling, and instead focusing your verbal skills into more constructive pursuits... just a bit of friendly advice...

[edit on 28-11-2009 by downisreallyup]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by downisreallyup]

reply to post by downisreallyup


Thank you for noticing Electric Universe's non-constructive method of communication. I gave you a star for that comment because someone else had to call him on it.

Truthfully, he was the only reason why I behaved the way that I did; and now that its been addressed by more than one member, he can evaluate his behavior and correct it.

Frankly, having read the original post and the enclosed doc, I don't see how it would support the idea that there was any kind of fraud or falsification going on.

It seems that we are looking at emails and remarks to code, made by programmers for other programmers to read. These other programmers would presumably be from within the project and so understand the references and issues.

It seems that some people see this as proof of fraud, simply because the programmers describe a process of using and converting data as well as reconstructing data and doing all three, based on old databases in various formats.

It doesn't suggest fraud or falsification to me, but rather programmers trying to derive realistic data from unrealiable databases and writing code that will read that data.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

People like you have no idea how to make a coherent, intelligent argument. Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2009) — Here’s yet another reason to hate humidity: it expands global warming, says a Texas A&M University professor. Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences who specializes in research on climate, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century. “Its a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean higher humidity, which in turn leads to even more warming,” Dessler explains.

People like you can't even read the postings of those you are attempting to argue with or understand your own postings.

1) I said that in order to increase H2O in the atmosphere you need to warm it up by some other means (because warming it increases the dew point).

2) What I said is exactly what Dr. Dessler is saying in the statement "warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere".

3) Dr. Dessler is specifically and non-ambigously stating, in the excerpt that you posted, that the "vicious cycle" of water vapor feedback has to be kicked off by some a greenhouse gas other than water.

Assuming you are quoting Dr. Dessler here because you trust his opinions, I'm glad you have put down your crack pipe long enough to learn enough to agree with me.

FYI, Dr. Andrew Dessler has a personal focus on the disconnect between the science and the politics of AGW. His explicit aim is to educate politicians and 'people like you' about the actual science involved.

A more informative excerpt from his work 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate' states:

A simple calculation can determine what the average temperature of the Earth should be for the outgoing radiation just to balance the energy of the absorbed sunlight. This calculation indicates that the average temperature of the Earth’s surface should be about −20 °C.

This is awfully cold. Fortunately, it is also wrong. The Earth’s surface is much warmer than this, a pleasant 15 °C on average. The error in the calculation comes from assuming that the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth passes directly to space. It does not, because it must pass through the atmosphere. ... This absorption is not caused by the main components of the atmosphere, ...Rather, the absorption comes from several minor atmospheric constituents, principally water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). ...

The power of these “greenhouse gases” to warm the Earth’s surface is awesome. Although these gases are present in the atmosphere at only minute concentrations, they warm the surface by nearly 35 °C. Their power becomes even clearer if we compare the climate of the Earth to that of the neighboring planets, Mars and Venus. Mars has a thin atmosphere that is almost completely transparent to infrared radiation, giving it an average surface temperature below −50 °C. Venus has a dense, CO2-rich atmosphere that produces an intense greenhouse effect, raising its average surface temperature above 450 °C – hot enough to melt lead.

But if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the Earth to its present habitable state, increasing the concentration of these gases could make the Earth warmer still. This possibility was proposed by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1906, and again with more supporting evidence by the British engineer Guy Callendar in 1938. These proposals were not initially taken seriously, because with the crude tools then available to observe infrared radiation, it looked like the levels of CO2 and water vapor already in the atmosphere were absorbing enough radiation to create the maximum possible greenhouse effect. By the 1950s, however, more precise measurements of infrared spectra showed this belief to be wrong, so increasing CO2 could increase infrared absorption in the atmosphere and raise the surface temperature.

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, nor is it the only one emitted by human activities. Other greenhouse gases that are increasing due to human activities include: methane (CH4), which is emitted from rice cultivation, livestock, biomass burning, and landfills; nitrous oxide (N2O), which is emitted from various agricultural and industrial processes; and the halocarbons, a group of synthetic chemicals of which the most important are the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are used as refrigerants, solvents, and in various other industrial applications. Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation.

By the 1950s and early 1960s, it was also becoming clear that human activities were releasing CO2 fast enough to significantly increase its atmospheric abundance. Figure 1.1 shows how the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied over the past 1000 years – remaining nearly constant for most of the millennium, then beginning a rapid increase around 1800. This rapid increase closely tracked the sharp rise in fossil-fuel use that began with the industrial revolution.

Despite clear evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2, during the 1960s and 1970s scientific views about likely future climate trends were divided. Some scientists expected the Earth to warm from rising concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Others expected the Earth to cool, ... By the early 1980s, however, global temperatures had resumed warming and many new pieces of evidence indicated that greenhouse gases were the predominant human influence and that warming was the predominant direction of concern.

reply to post by downisreallyup


Hey all,

Great thread OP, star and flag for you. It is good to see INFOWARRIORS all over this.
For those that downloaded the FOI2009 files here is a heads up.

I was reading the Harry_Read_Me: file about 2-3 days ago and all was fine.
I opened the file up to take another look about ten minutes ago and found that about half of the files are missing i.e. my computer has been hacked and said files are now gone [Including the Harry_Read_Me: file].

I checked the other back up copy’s that I made and found them to be fine so it is only the one on my computer.
It would seem that damage control is in over drive so make a few copies before your goes bye bye too.

This is some serious hot potatoes we have here…. Great work all and keep spreading the truth.

reply to post by WeAreOne


let me tell you one more tidbit, regarding d/c and such..


torrentfreak.com...

mininova.org has been neutralized, the file isn't available anymore, so i second the notion: get it while you can, i mean anyone can seed a torrent, the problem is that without indexing site, few people will ever receive it. furthermore, trackers can be eliminated too and then it gets even dicier.

PEOPLE.

STOP TRYING TO INTERPRET CHERRY-PICKED EMAIL SNIPPETS FILLED WITH SCIENTIFIC FIGURES/JARGON/CONVERSATION WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YOUR EVIDENCE IS WEAK, JUST BECAUSE YOU PROVIDE AN OUT-OF-CONTEXT SNIPPET OF A VAGUE CRU EMAIL AND SAY, "OMG THIS IS PROOF THEY'RE LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!11onez" DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

I THOUGHT YOU PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO BE RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVE. I DUNNO WTF I WAS THINKING...

reply to post by NoHierarchy

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.

www.eastangliaemails.com...

i think the context has been established, just take a look at the file this thread is about

the above quote stands for itself and is essentially a so called skeptic position, isn't it? if you honestly believe the whole mess will be ignored forever think again, millions of people have been 'exposed' to this scandal and successful supression for as much as a month ('till 2010) will only rub one simple message into the faces of everyone, that censorship is very real and literally everything has got to be a lie, for the simple reason that every lie needs a dozen more to cover it up and toppling a single one of all these (exponentially spreading) lies could and one day will debase the entire house of cards. at this point, the whole system is reduced to constantly patching its own mistakes, which leads to paralysis.

good job if they manage to convey that message. something's got to give and in the end that's always got to be ideology.

PS: allcaps, d'uh get a grip

[edit on 2009.12.1 by Long Lance]

reply to post by Long Lance

i think the context has been established, just take a look at the file this thread is about

You think wrong, at least as far as this thread and this quote are concerned.

the above quote stands for itself and is essentially a so called skeptic position, isn't it?

No, it does not stand alone, and it is NOT a 'so called skeptic' position. That opinion is exactly why you need to establish the context.

The email in question is from Kevin Trenberth saying that it was a “travesty” that they “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”, true. But what was he talking about? Exactly what couldn't he account for?

Here is the context of that email from RealClimate.org (response to comment number 138)

Trenberth is talking about our inability to be able to measure the net radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere to the requisite precision to be able to say on short time scales what the energy budget is doing. The observations are inadequate for that - not sure who is saying otherwise

OK, but why weren't the observations adequate? Here is more information from RealClimate.org (response to comment 162)

Trenberth doesn't have a model. Instead he is really interested in what exactly is going on in the observations. Where is the energy going, how much is coming in and going out, what are the impacts of La Nina on those fluxes. His frustration is that the current observing platform is not sufficiently accurate to do this properly, and so we end up with imperfect explanations - especially on the short term. For him, 'natural variability' is only the beginning of the answer, not the whole thing. And that's fine

And again in Trenberths own words from ClimateProgress.com

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.

OK again, but why isn't the observing platform sufficiently accurate?

Well, here's his paper that explains it: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s
global energy (PDF)

From the Abstract:

"Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future."

From the Concluding Remarks:

Although the sea level budget is reasonably closed for the post-2003 period, the global energy budget is not closed. Increasing land ice melt at expense of ocean expansion to account for sea level rise has consequences for the energy budget. Accordingly another much needed component is the TOA radiation, but CERES [49] data exist only through 2005 and are not yet long or reliable enough to bring to bear on this question. This highlights the need to bring the CERES TOA radiation up to date along with reprocessed cloud data while ensuring that changes in the ocean, sea ice and sea level are maintained with adequate quality control and sampling to provide estimates reliable enough to address the questions posed in the introduction.

So what is the travesty he is talking about?

From AllegationAudit: Trenberth on Travesty

The context is now clear. Trenberth is talking about the travesty of the observation system and our inability to see where the heat is going from year to year. It is well known and public that there are problems in recent years with the global climate observation system (earthobservatory.nasa.gov...). Problems are more of a rule in any complex field of science rather than an exception.

Finally then: The travesty is that Trenberth can't get exactly the data he needs to do his calculation properly. Not that he can't explain the 'lack of warming', he can: 'natural variation'. But he wants to get into more detail, what exactly does 'natural variation' entail. Nothing more, nothing less. He is lobbying for improvements in the system that directly affect his research.

NOW the context has been established. In this thread.



[edit on 5/12/2009 by rnaa]