Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
However, let me play devil's advocate here....

You said "What's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming doesn't pan out?
do they say oops our bad we were wrong? by the way here's the next boogey man. Global pan-luke-warming?"

I say "what's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming IS real and we have done nothing. What then?"

"WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?"

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Finally, after 2 years of exhaustive study, I am satisfied that I have a complete picture of exactly what is going on….and my conclusions are disturbing.




So after two years of study you have an master degree and you are the expert in this field? Everyone who doesn´t agree with you is therefor wrong?

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Elevated levels of methane were first observed in 2003. Venting significantly increased in the last year (2009.…that was the most recent expedition to the area to take samples of atmospheric methane concentrations). The predicted abrupt release of 50GT from the ESAS has not yet occurred, but the significant increase in venting could be a warning sign that it is imminent.

...we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ~12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by melatonin

 

how about this. Could you show me a graph of temperature trends over the last 10,000 years that you would accept as evidence? What I would be looking for is the large temperature rises and falls, much like the medieval warm period. Then I would ask what caused that. Since you guys seem to have an answer for everything, I think that is fair. Then explain the ice age. I am afraid that maybe WE (the collective us) don't really know everything yet and we just think we do. But prove me wrong, as you love to do.

Originally posted by melatonin
....
And with the bombastic attitude as they express their ignorance, it's the lack of shame that gets me. There's a few deniers here who are worth a bit of time - they often accept their poor reasoning (show glimmers of intellectual honesty). But the more sociopathic aren't worth the effort.

edit on 4-11-2010 by melatonin because: Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UNs embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

NASA climate data worse than East Anglia CRU?

posted at 12:15 pm on March 31, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

That assessment doesn’t come from climate-change skeptics, but from NASA itself. A FOIA request from the Competitive Enterprise Institute revealed the internal e-mail evaluation, and also another problem with the East Anglia CRU data. It turns out that the databases maintained by NASA, UEA CRU, and the NOAA NCDC have self-endorsing mechanisms that mean that problems in one or more mean problems for all:
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASAs data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASAs Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDCs data for the U.S. means and (East Anglia) data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

Why is this a problem for all of the anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) data sets? NASA chief James Hansen, now an Obama administration official, explained in the same e-mail thread:
“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,” said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”
The efforts by NASA, UEA CRU, and NCDC have not been independent of each other at all. They have been very much related, which means that systemic problems discovered in the UEA CRU data and analyses bleed over onto the other projects as well. They use each other’s analyses as assumptions, and each other’s data as the basis of their own calculations. The collapse of the UEA CRU’s credibility necessarily damages the credibility of the entire AGW industry.
Of course, that’s hardly the only damage to AGW credibility over the last few months:

...
Jones said critics were "trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion".

He said: "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process."

Jones, who told the Sunday Times he had considered suicide over the controversy caused by the release of the emails, said he could not comment on allegations that the university mishandled requests for his data under Freedom of Information laws.

But he denied that he had unfairly tried to hijack the peer review process, as suggested by critics who point to an email in which he wrote, "I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Both papers subsequently appeared in the report. "The IPCC is an assessment, it's not a review," said Jones. "So the authors have to know something about the subject to assess which are the important papers."

Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado has said previously: "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out."
...

November 29, 2009

Climate change data dumped Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
...