Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

This e-mail discovery is great! I didn't even need this to believe Global Warming was a myth. But it sure is great to be vindicated!

This is on the same level as Enron. Scientists cooking the books to get more grant money.

This e-mail scandal is the "Jump the Shark" moment for the Global Warming Alarmists!

reply to post by mnemeth1


I am arguing nothing of the sort there spanky. I am saying there is a bunch of information getting ignored while everyone screams "FRAUD" at the tops of their lungs.

Fraud is an intent to deceive. The documents that I linked explain what they were doing and why. When pulling averages from multiple sources you can have a source under shade, a source on a tall freight liner, a source directly on the water etc. etc.. At any given time not all would be reporting back, some could even report impossible data.

The modifications are for homogeneous data. Not for deception.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
As a scientific-minded person, then, can you show me any data that indicates a decline in "local area" temperatures between 1970 and 2006, during which time the USA reduced its overall carbon emissions by more than 50%?

Certainly, with such a drastic reduction in overall carbon emissions (according to EPA numbers), we should certainly see some sort of "local area" temperature reduction over a 36-year time frame, yes?

— Doc Velocity

Here is an article showing that from 1970-2005 coastal California had a decline in it's summer temperatures.

findarticles.com...

Of course, there is many who speculate the cause....

One speculation is increased cloud cover. Well I wrote an article on ATS explaining how human pollution can cause droughts by seeding clouds constantly, and not allowing large cloud formations to form. A reduction in emissions can probably cause more cloud cover....

That all is besides the point anyway. You can not determine if CO2 effects the weather by just watching CO2 levels because there are many other factors that come into play. If you would have watched the video I put in the OP it explains a lot of that.

For instance, solar activity could have changed the results. So even if CO2 levels are down, and it is effectively cooling the Earth, a large Sun spot can come along and ruin all that cooling. It could even evaporate water which then releases CO2 that the water had trapped in it, along with other greenhouse gases.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I am arguing nothing of the sort there spanky. I am saying there is a bunch of information getting ignored while everyone screams "FRAUD" at the tops of their lungs.

Fraud is an intent to deceive. The documents that I linked explain what they were doing and why. When pulling averages from multiple sources you can have a source under shade, a source on a tall freight liner, a source directly on the water etc. etc.. At any given time not all would be reporting back, some could even report impossible data.

The modifications are for homogeneous data. Not for deception.

We know why there were doing it.

They were doing it to hide the MASSIVE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM THAT INVALIDATES THE USE OF TREE RING DATA AS A PROXY.

Its freaking all over the code!

Its everywhere!

Its in the emails, the code, the carts, the papers, everything!

TOTAL FRAUD

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
No data was lost.

Au contraire... The data in question has now been thrown out by the hysterical climate-change crusaders, rather than keeping it, explaining it and defending it.

Can you say "18-minute gap"...?


— Doc Velocity



[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Of course they are, the work is seen as tainted, it was seen as such before anyone even asked the CRU what it was, before the CRU even had a chance to address it the website "climategate.org" had already gone into full gear.. They could bring out a thousand feet of micro printed data on paper and hold panels ever hour for a year and people would still accuse them of fraud. Every senator would constantly scream about it to assist whatever lobby hurled them a hawaiian vacation that week.

There is no point in wasting the energy on it under the mass-scale attack. It is better to focus on other data to try and find a solution. People care more about knee-jerk reactions and dramatic language than they care about facts and evidence.

Massive list of code that halts proxy data past 1960 in the models

wattsupwiththat.com...

complete fraud.


FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro

printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I am arguing nothing of the sort there spanky. I am saying there is a bunch of information getting ignored while everyone screams "FRAUD" at the tops of their lungs.

Fraud is an intent to deceive. The documents that I linked explain what they were doing and why. When pulling averages from multiple sources you can have a source under shade, a source on a tall freight liner, a source directly on the water etc. etc.. At any given time not all would be reporting back, some could even report impossible data.

The modifications are for homogeneous data. Not for deception.

We know why there were doing it.

They were doing it to hide the MASSIVE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM THAT INVALIDATES THE USE OF TREE RING DATA AS A PROXY.

Its freaking all over the code!

Its everywhere!

Its in the emails, the code, the carts, the papers, everything!

TOTAL FRAUD

I realize it is all over the code. I have actually looked it over as well as websites that scream it is proof of something nefarious.

I am saying you need to actually investigate the reasoning that they did it. Which is clearly defined in published papers. Whether the method was correct or not is one thing. To claim it is fraud though without actually looking into things shows a lack of caring about what is actually going on, and more interest in chest thumping.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I am arguing nothing of the sort there spanky. I am saying there is a bunch of information getting ignored while everyone screams "FRAUD" at the tops of their lungs.

Fraud is an intent to deceive. The documents that I linked explain what they were doing and why. When pulling averages from multiple sources you can have a source under shade, a source on a tall freight liner, a source directly on the water etc. etc.. At any given time not all would be reporting back, some could even report impossible data.

The modifications are for homogeneous data. Not for deception.

We know why there were doing it.

They were doing it to hide the MASSIVE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM THAT INVALIDATES THE USE OF TREE RING DATA AS A PROXY.

Its freaking all over the code!

Its everywhere!

Its in the emails, the code, the carts, the papers, everything!

TOTAL FRAUD

I realize it is all over the code. I have actually looked it over as well as websites that scream it is proof of something nefarious.

I am saying you need to actually investigate the reasoning that they did it. Which is clearly defined in published papers. Whether the method was correct or not is one thing. To claim it is fraud though without actually looking into things shows a lack of caring about what is actually going on, and more interest in chest thumping.

LSKDJF'___'KFJ

I just told you the reason!

We know the reason!

They even tell us the reason point blank in the emails!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Massive list of code that halts proxy data past 1960 in the models

wattsupwiththat.com...

complete fraud.


FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro

printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

And I raise with this:

snip

As for decisions about the most appropriate baseline period to use for the
series, that is as you point out an important issue and one we have to
consider with some circumspection, especially if a "modern" calibration
(e.g., 1931-1960) to the instrumental record gives a substantially
different alignment
from the more 19th century-oriented calibration you describe. The tradeoff
of course is that the instrumental series itself is considerably less certain
prior to the 20th century while, as you point out, the non-climatic influence
on tree growth may be setting in by the mid 20th century. Something I think
we can iron out satisfactorily at the next juncture.

AND

>With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
>period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
>all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
>mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
>target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
>degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
>also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
>shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
>over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
>things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
>tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
>yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You just showed either A you don't know how to read, or B you just don't know what they are talking about.

The purpose of using tree ring data is to find the temperature of the area. However, their tree ring data was showing a decline in temperature, when in actuality their records of temperature changes from other measruing devices show differently.

You just quoted them saying that they have more accurate temperature data than what is found on the trees. Since they don't have accurate temperature data before 1960, they had to use the trees data...

You don't even know what you are quoting!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

(snipe)
TOTAL FRAUD

I realize it is all over the code. I have actually looked it over as well as websites that scream it is proof of something nefarious.

I am saying you need to actually investigate the reasoning that they did it. Which is clearly defined in published papers. Whether the method was correct or not is one thing. To claim it is fraud though without actually looking into things shows a lack of caring about what is actually going on, and more interest in chest thumping.

LSKDJF'___'KFJ

I just told you the reason!

We know the reason!

They even tell us the reason point blank in the emails!




Yeah, you said your reason. I am saying your interpretation and the ones cited are either incomplete, or flat out wrong.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
The carbon is still there, being slowly scrubbed by plants-which is slowing down more because of mass deforestation.

Let's clear up another misconception, then, while we're at it... Land-based vegetation is not the primary CO2 "scrubber" on planet Earth. The Earth's oceans — covering over 70% of the planet's surface in a life-bearing medium that supports uncounted billions of tons of carbon-absorbing plant life in a water column 2 miles deep on average — is the primary "scrubber" of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.

We could wipe out the entire Amazonian rain forest tomorrow without significantly impacting the Earth's capacity for absorbing and storing atmospheric CO2.

That's the oceans' job.

Beyond that, in the USA, we have actually replenished more forested lands than originally existed on this continent at the time of its discovery by western explorers in the 15th century. That's right, the North American continent now has more forested lands than it did 500 years ago.

So much for the "mass deforestation" theory.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
For instance, solar activity could have changed the results. So even if CO2 levels are down, and it is effectively cooling the Earth, a large Sun spot can come along and ruin all that cooling. It could even evaporate water which then releases CO2 that the water had trapped in it, along with other greenhouse gases.

Ummm...CO2 is in lime water normally. Now unless there has been a massive change in the oceans turning them into salted soft drinks, I have to wonder how you get CO2 from H2O without adding a carbon and oxygen molecule.

As I said before, research your information.

Cheers - Dave

yeah?

what exactly is your point?

what part of this are you not understanding?

explain to me why the proxy data before 1960 is valid while the proxy data after 1960 is not valid.

all they do is say a "non-temperature signal" causes a divergence, they do not provide an explanation as to what caused the "non-temperature signal".

Without an explanation, THAT MEANS ALL THE PROXY DATA IS GARBAGE BECAUSE IT COULD ALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME "NON TEMPERATURE SIGNAL"

TOTAL FRAUD!


[edit on 4-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by lordtyp0
The carbon is still there, being slowly scrubbed by plants-which is slowing down more because of mass deforestation.

Let's clear up another misconception, then, while we're at it... Land-based vegetation is not the primary CO2 "scrubber" on planet Earth. The Earth's oceans — covering over 70% of the planet's surface in a life-bearing medium that supports uncounted billions of tons of carbon-absorbing plant life in a water column 2 miles deep on average — is the primary "scrubber" of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere.

We could wipe out the entire Amazonian rain forest tomorrow without significantly impacting the Earth's capacity for absorbing and storing atmospheric CO2.

That's the oceans' job.

Beyond that, in the USA, we have actually replenished more forested lands than originally existed on this continent at the time of its discovery by western explorers in the 15th century. That's right, the North American continent now has more forested lands than it did 500 years ago.

So much for the "mass deforestation" theory.

— Doc Velocity

I am sorry, perhaps you should re-read what I said. I did not indicate anything about the priority of it's role. I simply said it would logically slow down the scrub process. ie: less scrubbing units = less being scrubbed at any given time.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
yeah?

what exactly is your point?

what part of this are you not understanding?

explain to me why the proxy data before 1960 is valid while the proxy data after 1960 is not valid.

all they do is say a "non-temperature signal" causes a divergence, they do not provide an explanation as to what caused the "non-temperature signal".

Without an explanation, THAT MEANS ALL THE PROXY DATA IS GARBAGE BECAUSE IT COULD ALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME "NON TEMPERATURE SIGNAL"

TOTAL FRAUD!


[edit on 4-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

I will try and dumb it down for you a bit.

>With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
>period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
>all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
>mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
>target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
>degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
>also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
>shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
>over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
>things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
>tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
>yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.

This means the tree rings were showing drops that were contradicted by things such as observable thermometers.

The trees were showing things that were not backed up by the local weatherman and thermometer data.

In otherwords the trees that were cited were being affected by another force which tainted the data.

(edit to add some more clarity)
This also implies that other dating methods were backing up the data otherwise used to sample for homogeneous data.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by mnemeth1
yeah?

what exactly is your point?

what part of this are you not understanding?

explain to me why the proxy data before 1960 is valid while the proxy data after 1960 is not valid.

all they do is say a "non-temperature signal" causes a divergence, they do not provide an explanation as to what caused the "non-temperature signal".

Without an explanation, THAT MEANS ALL THE PROXY DATA IS GARBAGE BECAUSE IT COULD ALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME "NON TEMPERATURE SIGNAL"

TOTAL FRAUD!


[edit on 4-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

I will try and dumb it down for you a bit.

>With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
>period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
>all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N. As such, the
>mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
>target series over the same period. Since the observed series consists of
>degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
>also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90. One could, of course,
>shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
>over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
>things. Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
>tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
>yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.

This means the tree rings were showing drops that were contradicted by things such as observable thermometers.

The trees were showing things that were not backed up by the local weatherman and thermometer data.

In otherwords the trees that were cited were being affected by another force which tainted the data.

(edit to add some more clarity)
This also implies that other dating methods were backing up the data otherwise used to sample for homogeneous data.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

I KNOW THE TREE RINGS SHOW THINGS THAT WERE NOT BACKED UP BY THE LOCAL THERMOMETERS - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Once again you show your lack of knowledge on this subject.

The oceans (water) are natural carbon sinks. They absorb CO2. However when the oceans are warmed, they loose their ability to absorb CO2 and they actually release CO2 they have captured.

How you don't know this is far beyond me. And why you are even daring to debate without basic knowledge of this is even more illogical.

You can now stop posting on this topic since you just proved you don't even know the basics of how CO2 interacts with Earth.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I am sorry, perhaps you should re-read what I said. I did not indicate anything about the priority of it's role. I simply said it would logically slow down the scrub process.

Then we should see a much more erratic progression of atmospheric CO2 levels over the life history of the Earth; for, while land-based vegetation has never been a constant in the Earth's capacity to process CO2, the Earth's oceans have been uniformly constant in scrubbing the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years — much more constant than the transient plant life of Earth's limited land masses.

And I comprehended your writing quite well the first time — you're an eloquent and intelligent communicator.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


You are aware that the oceans only absorb ONE THIRD of CO2 in the atmosphere right? So that means we are creating more CO2 than the oceans can handle.

Also, warming of any type limits the oceans ability to absorb CO2. So it's not constant.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]