Climate Change & Global Warming

[crofter]

So? The report spells it out. Due to ENSO and SAM there was an minimum snowmelt 2008-2009.

 

But when the same researchers found extreme snowmelt in Antarctica in 2005, this is what they said then:

 

"Snow melting is very connected to surface temperature change, so it's likely warmer temperatures are at the root of what we've observed in Antarctica," said lead author Marco Tedesco

 

The study's results from the satellite data support related research reporting a direct link between changes in near surface air temperatures and the duration and geographic area of snow melting on Antarctica. These studies, when taken together, indicate a relationship to climate change.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920122154.htm

[crofter]

Oh and BTW, the warming we are experiencing now is already far in excess of that seen in the Medieval Warm Period.

 

Only if you believe the "hockey stick" graphs. If, as seems likely, the hockey stick effect is a result of scientists massaging the temperature data, the warming we are seeing now is not unprecedented.

[Njugle]

Insignificant?

 

How's this for a misquote,

 

the effect is insignificant.

 

Howdja like them onions.

 

 

I did/do have a sensible reply but a technical hitch prevents me from posting it at the moment.

[crofter]

They may well have discovered something dodgy in the temp records, but the way they have presented it destroys any credibility their findings might have. This report was not written by scientists and so has no credibility. When it has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then I might take it seriously.

 

BTW, crofter, how come you didn't notice it was dodgy? All the signs are there, clear as day. Discussion of politics, complete ignorance of climate science, it is screamingly obvious.

 

But is it true? After reading a few of the leaked CRU emails, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

The "official" Australian temperatures are dodgy too.

 

Here are 11 examples where Jones et al systematically truncated pre-1951 data or ignored more rural data around many small town Australian stations

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317

[ArabiaTerra]

So? The report spells it out. Due to ENSO and SAM there was an minimum snowmelt 2008-2009.

 

But when the same researchers found extreme snowmelt in Antarctica in 2005, this is what they said then:

 

"Snow melting is very connected to surface temperature change, so it's likely warmer temperatures are at the root of what we've observed in Antarctica," said lead author Marco Tedesco

Errr, snowmelt is connected to warmer temperatures?

 

Doh! Why didn't I think of that. That's why the snow doesn't lie all summer.

 

(I'm a bit pissed right now, so you might get a more sensible answer tomorrow)

 

@ Njugle, Not sure what you're on about there, 1% seems pretty insignificant to me.

 

Oh and BTW, the warming we are experiencing now is already far in excess of that seen in the Medieval Warm Period.

 

Only if you believe the hockey stick graphs. If, as seems likely, the hockey stick effect is a result of scientists massaging the temperature data, the warming we are seeing now is not unprecedented.

Oh god, the "Hockey stick has been debunked" zombie lie again. Give me strength.

 

Tell you what, crofter, how about you do some research into the "Hockey stick" "controversy" and get back to me, I just can't be arsed right now.

 

Edit: Start here, crofter, or here.

 

And here's one for you, Njugle.

 

And now I really need to go to bed.

[ArabiaTerra]

Some more on the New Zealand temperature data which clearly shows that the deniers are liars who can't be trusted to present the real story honestly.

 

Crofter, how many more times do I have to demonstrate to you that the professional deniers are liars and crooks who will do anything to advance their political agenda?

 

These guys are frauds, pure and simple!

 

None of these cranks should be accorded any respect in future. By their words shall we know them, and their words show them to be ignorant, bullying fools. De Freitas should withdraw and apologise, or resign from his post at Auckland University, and if Treadgold, Dunleavy, McShane, Leyland,or any other member of the NZ CSC want to partake in public debate on the subject of climate science, they should expect derision to be heaped on them and their views.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Oh, yeah, Crofter. Do you want to make a bet on how long it takes Anthony Watts of the Watts up with that blog to apologise for publishing the NZ report and explain why it was wrong? (I'm assuming that's where you read about it.)

 

I bet: never.

[crofter]

These guys are frauds, pure and simple!

 

None of these cranks should be accorded any respect in future. By their words shall we know them, and their words show them to be ignorant, bullying fools. De Freitas should withdraw and apologise, or resign from his post at Auckland University, and if Treadgold, Dunleavy, McShane, Leyland,or any other member of the NZ CSC want to partake in public debate on the subject of climate science, they should expect derision to be heaped on them and their views.

 

What? -

 

NIWA have stonewalled us for years, literally for years, and refused to release the changes.

 

In our article, we shook the tree, so, amazingly, it was tabled in the House and a question was asked of the Minister; now, that public information everybody has been entitled to see is, we hope, about to be released.

 

We hope there are valid reasons for their adjustments, and we have no reason to think otherwise, but if they continue to refuse to tell us what they are, I hope you are prepared to transfer your understandable annoyance to NIWA.

 

 

Errr, snowmelt is connected to warmer temperatures?

 

So, in 2005, when snowmelt supports global warming theory, it is related to climate, but in the years since (as snowmelt has declined year on year), it is no longer climate related???

 

Edit: Start here, crofter, or here.

 

Realclimate is run by the CRU crew, they have lost a little credibility lately, or hasn't the "Independent" told you yet?!

 

Edit: just checked the "Independent" website - STILL nothing about the CRU data leak, but they are running this headline:

 

World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

 

 

Washington Times article:

 

Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy's own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply "garbage."

 

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/?feat=home_editorials

[crofter]

Just had a look at the realclimate page... if you remove the CRU temps (the red line) there is no hockey stick.

 

Another article about the shonky science:

 

CRU calls the 1961-1990 the “normal†period and the average temperature of this period it calls the “normal.†It subtracts the normal from each monthly average and calls these the monthly “anomalies.†A positive anomaly means a temperature was warmer than CRU’s normal period. Finally CRU averages the grid box anomalies over regions such as Europe or over the entire surface of the globe for each month to get the European or global monthly average anomaly. You see the result in the IPCC graph nearby, which shows rising temperatures.

 

The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as ‘normal’ was CRUs. Had CRU chosen a different period under consideration, the IPCC graph would have shown less warming, as discussed in one of the Climategate emails, from David Parker of the UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised Jones not to select a different period, saying “anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.†That’s hardly a compelling scientific justification!

 

CRU’s average temperature data doesn’t jive with that of Vincent Courtillot, a French geo-magneticist, director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris, and a former scientific advisor to the French Cabinet. Last year he and three colleagues plotted an average temperature chart for Europe that shows a surprisingly different trend. Aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use grew.

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx#ixzz0Y3HjMoU8

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

ok mr A.T we are all now very aware of your beliefs on this subject.

Has it ever occured to you that your uncomprimising stance on this subject is gathering more strength against your beliefs than for them.

As we all know there is no chance of the burning of fosslil fuuels stopping any tim soon.

get a grip and get a job!

[Carlos]

And that's the sad thing, that it's considered that politics and personal beliefs have anything valid to say when it comes to a problem of science

[ArabiaTerra]

What? -

 

NIWA have stonewalled us for years, literally for years, and refused to release the changes.

This is a lie. This information was released to the NZ CRC two years ago. By the Way, The NZ CRC is not a scientific organisation. It has no climate scientists and produces no original research. It is a political lobbying group funded by, among others, The Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry lobbying group based in the USA.

 

Errr, snowmelt is connected to warmer temperatures?

 

So, in 2005, when snowmelt supports global warming theory, it is related to climate, but in the years since (as snowmelt has declined year on year), it is no longer climate related???

In case you haven't noticed, the ice is melting in East Antarctica. And as far as the snowmelt goes, this has been explained by the hole in the ozone layer which has altered wind patterns around Antarctica. Now if scientists discover something which they thought was due to global warming, isn't. Is it not right that they should change their analysis? This is science, it has nothing to do with politics.

 

Edit: Start here, crofter, or here.

 

Realclimate is run by the CRU crew, they have lost a little credibility lately, or hasn't the "Independent" told you yet?!

 

Edit: just checked the "Independent" website - STILL nothing about the CRU data leak, but they are running this headline:

 

World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

Perhaps the Independent is simply giving the hack the attention it deserves?

Washington Times article:

 

Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy's own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply "garbage."

The Washington Times has even less credibility in this area as the Telegraph.

Just had a look at the realclimate page... if you remove the CRU temps (the red line) there is no hockey stick.

Err, the red line is the actual instrumental temperature record, crofter. Now in many cases these temperatures have been corrected. So why have they been corrected? Well, as was shown by the NZ data you posted earlier, the adjustments were made for perfectly legitimate reasons such as the moving of weather stations. So why do you assume otherwise for other temperature adjustments? (Because it's all a big conspiracy to put up our taxes, of course. )

 

Hmmm, Vincent Courtillot, not a climate scientist. What does RealClimate have to say about him:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/

 

Scroll down about halfway through the post to get to the important bit.

ok mr A.T we are all now very aware of your beliefs on this subject.

Has it ever occured to you that your uncomprimising stance on this subject is gathering more strength against your beliefs than for them.

You do know how I feel on this subject, trust the science. So why should I sit back and say nothing when others post stuff which is blatantly wrong and which interferes with the fight to get governments to take AGW seriously? If I know this stuff is wrong I have to answer it.

 

Basically, it's not about "belief", it's about science, which is about measuring and understanding reality.

And that's the sad thing, that it's considered that politics and personal beliefs have anything valid to say when it comes to a problem of science

Absolutely right. I despair sometimes. But with Copenhagen, we do seem to be making some progress towards rationality, finally.

[ArabiaTerra]

Why is it, do you think, that the climate change deniers spend so much time attacking the credibility of scientists and scientific institutions?

 

Surely, if there really were major flaws in AGW theory, it would be simpler to attack that directly, so why haven't they? After all, it's not about the money, the deniers are financed by the fossil fuel industry and they're not short of a bob or two.

 

One reason. The science is sound.

 

And what about the conspiracy loons? Well if they're right, then what a conspiracy. No only does it encompass all the thousands of scientists working in the field, but governments, media organisations and the natural world itself!

 

So explain to me, how did the conspirators get the glaciers and the permafrost and the rainfall patterns and the wildfires and the ice caps and the sea ice and the sea levels to cooperate?

 

Like I said, some conspiracy.

 

http://www.smileyshut.com/smileys/new/ANIMATEDMSN/emot174.gif

[crofter]

What? -

 

NIWA have stonewalled us for years, literally for years, and refused to release the changes.

This is a lie. This information was released to the NZ CRC two years ago. By the Way, The NZ CRC is not a scientific organisation. It has no climate scientists and produces no original research. It is a political lobbying group funded by, among others, The Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry lobbying group based in the USA.

 

Ok, I will take your word for it, but will be watching developments.

 

This is science, it has nothing to do with politics.

Perhaps the Independent is simply giving the hack the attention it deserves?

 

Are you serious??

 

The Washington Times has even less credibility in this area as the Telegraph.

 

It was a leaked CRU email which described the model data as "garbage" the WT merely reported this description.

 

Err, the red line is the actual instrumental temperature record, crofter

 

I know. The line prior to 1960 is proxy data, but running this on past 1960 gives the decline which had to be hidden. That is why the CRU version of real temps are grafted on from 1960, and the proxy data truncated at this point. If you plot the proxy curve up till present and remove the CRU temps (the red line) there is no hockey stick. Have you read the emails on their decision to hide the decline? It is politics, not science.

 

 

Hmmm, Vincent Courtillot, not a climate scientist. What does RealClimate have to say about him:

 

The fact that he is not a climate scientist is not really relevant, but that is an interesting page. Thank you for the link. Perhaps some of his views are wrong, but I think we do need more plots of real temperatures to compare with the "garbage" which has been accepted up until now. The CRU should have made their data available to McIntyre years ago, it is not very "scientific" to hide it from people, science is all about replication, and challenge after all - how can this happen if the CRU refuse to release information and delete it or "lose" it when faced with FOI requests?

[Pleepsie]

Climate change data dumped

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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

Hmmm...Libraries at that time were able to scan and store all newspapers on microfilm, but this university unit were unable to do the same with the extremely important data that all their predictions were based on. Somehow, I just do not believe that the data was not saved in some format. I do believe that the CRU does not want those figures scrutinised.