Climategate--The Final Chapter
12-15-2011, 09:07 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by N2264J
This is just one of the many feedback systems that is so troubling.
Depending on what article you read, methane is 20 to 25 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon. As the environment warms, the permafrost is melted releasing more methane which warms the environment further melting more permafrost, etcetera.
If you haven't watched the "How it all Ends" series I linked to eariler, the gradual change in climate we used to believe would take place over hundreds of years isn't the concern. It is the cataclysmic and sudden shift from feedback loops becoming their own self sustaining engine that will get us.
Depending on what article you read, methane is 20 to 25 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon. As the environment warms, the permafrost is melted releasing more methane which warms the environment further melting more permafrost, etcetera.
If you haven't watched the "How it all Ends" series I linked to eariler, the gradual change in climate we used to believe would take place over hundreds of years isn't the concern. It is the cataclysmic and sudden shift from feedback loops becoming their own self sustaining engine that will get us.
12-15-2011, 09:46 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by N2264J
This is just one of the many feedback systems that is so troubling.
Depending on what article you read, methane is 20 to 25 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon. As the environment warms, the permafrost is melted releasing more methane which warms the environment further melting more permafrost, etcetera.
If you haven't watched the "How it all Ends" series I linked to eariler, the gradual change in climate we used to believe would take place over hundreds of years isn't the concern. It is the cataclysmic and sudden shift from feedback loops becoming their own self sustaining engine that will get us.
Depending on what article you read, methane is 20 to 25 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon. As the environment warms, the permafrost is melted releasing more methane which warms the environment further melting more permafrost, etcetera.
If you haven't watched the "How it all Ends" series I linked to eariler, the gradual change in climate we used to believe would take place over hundreds of years isn't the concern. It is the cataclysmic and sudden shift from feedback loops becoming their own self sustaining engine that will get us.
12-16-2011, 08:27 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 361
Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data? | Fox News
Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?
Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be "Yes."
The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.
Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.
“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.
Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.
The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.
"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”
Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.
"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.
"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told FoxNews.com.
"Not with us, it won't," he said.
The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.
When contacted by FoxNews.com, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.
However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.
"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.
But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."
McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."
"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.
Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told FoxNews.com that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public.
"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told FoxNews.com.
Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.
"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”
Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.
"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."
Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?
Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be "Yes."
The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.
Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.
“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.
Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.
The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.
"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”
Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.
"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.
"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told FoxNews.com.
"Not with us, it won't," he said.
The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.
When contacted by FoxNews.com, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.
However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.
"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.
But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."
McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."
"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.
Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told FoxNews.com that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public.
"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told FoxNews.com.
Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.
"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”
Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.
"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."
12-18-2011, 09:43 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: seated beer curl
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by jungle
Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.
George Orwell
George Orwell
....in philosophy, religion, ethics or politics.
12-19-2011, 09:01 PM
#95
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Originally Posted by LeftWing
As if you have exclusive insight to the facts or justification to define "two" in Orwell's equation....in philosophy, religion, ethics or politics.
....in philosophy, religion, ethics or politics.1. Why are Mann, Jones and others hiding data, falsifying data, and presenting false conclusions?
2. What is the correct temperature for the Earth?
3. What percentage of climate change in the past was caused by man, and what percentage by natural cycles?
4.What effect would the UN proposals or cap and trade have on the climate?
What are the costs/benefits of these proposals?
Looking forward to your answers.
12-20-2011, 05:31 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
I'll bet one of those Climate Scientists could answer the question. You know those guys who discovered a science 25 years ago and have done nothing but profit off of it for the last 24 years.
Much like the alchemy "scientists" in midieval Europe knew how to turn Iron in to gold for the right price.
Much like the alchemy "scientists" in midieval Europe knew how to turn Iron in to gold for the right price.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 12-20-2011 at 09:37 AM.
12-20-2011, 08:35 AM
#97
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
...but why don't you educate us on climate science?
Looking forward to your answers.
Looking forward to your answers.
I don't know if you've noticed or not but jungle isn't interested in any answers that challenge his world view. Over the past few years, I've pointed to many resources on the subject and I don't believe he even clicks on the links because he keeps asking the same questions.
He's a crank who has bought into the anti intellectual perversion of politicizing physics. If jungle and his team were in charge, we'd still be living in caves and bleeding people to make them well.
Unwinding "Hide the Decline" - YouTube
Global Warming: It's Not About the Hockey Stick - YouTube
12-20-2011, 08:46 AM
#98
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Originally Posted by N2264J
LeftWing -
I don't know if you've noticed or not but jungle isn't interested in any answers that challenge his world view. Over the past few years, I've pointed to many resources on the subject and I don't believe he even clicks on the links because he keeps asking the same questions.
He's a crank who has bought into the anti intellectual perversion of politicizing physics. If jungle and his team were in charge, we'd still be living in caves and bleeding people to make them well.
]
I don't know if you've noticed or not but jungle isn't interested in any answers that challenge his world view. Over the past few years, I've pointed to many resources on the subject and I don't believe he even clicks on the links because he keeps asking the same questions.
He's a crank who has bought into the anti intellectual perversion of politicizing physics. If jungle and his team were in charge, we'd still be living in caves and bleeding people to make them well.
]
Of course, I am a crank, but I find it somewhat disturbing that you cannot answer simple questions in plain English.
Go ahead, give it a try, answer those four questions if you can. Try to be honest just this one time.
12-20-2011, 02:29 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
12-21-2011, 07:03 AM
#100
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
