Interesting read re. Global warming
- Thread starter Moraff
- Start date
Oh, for fuck sakes. If that were the case you would have put smilies in just you have in this one.I know. I wasnt being serious
Rockie, you're not the brightest bulb in the room. Sorry for being blunt, but its the truth
I was the one who misunderstood Phil's post and I'll take the knocks for it (unlike Michael Mann, I can admit when I'm wrong). I was pretty certain the Guardian is left-wing but it doesn't hurt to double-check.
Oh, it gets better :biggrin1:
Let me walk you through it so even a dumb-dumb like you can understand it. I figured some of you might use the "Guardian is not a credible newspaper" excuse. Thats why I wrote "inbe4" at the start of my sentence.
Here it is again:
Oh, you mean in the climategate scandal in which some fossil fuel funded arse stole emails and tried to swiftboat the whole of the science.
The one that was fully disproved by 5 independent studies.
That one?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/earth/02climate.html?src=me&_r=0
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-cru-inquiry/
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?hp
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/23/climategate-debunked-again-climate-deniers-mike-mann-born-in-kenya/
As said before.
Bullshit.
None of the links contradicts my point about the Phil Jones testimony regarding peer review.
But no matter. Since your first link was to the Penn State findings that supposedly "cleared" Michael Mann, let's explore that a bit further. In particular, let's look at what the Atlantic had to say about Mann's so-called exoneration:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/
Since the writer says the investigation would be "difficult to parody," it doesn't sound like he found it all that convincing. By the looks of it, Penn State "cleared" Mann by not asking him any tough questions.
Some exoneration.
I'm sure you've heard that conservative pundit Mark Steyn also made some comments about the Penn State investigation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
You still assume everything/most Jones said is true. A smell test I use for lies, when you have contradictory statements, he who has the most to gain by telling a lie, usually is. It works for me far more often than not. Jones is trying to protect his sins by saying everyone is doing it, so don't blame him. remember, some of these named aren't just names. I've actually seen some of them at work and met a few more. They never came across as people who would risk it all on cooking the books. The Anglia gang were not any in that group.
I take your point but I haven't heard that anyone has challenged Jones' testimony -- at least, not publicly.
Also, Jones, Mann and crew played pretty major roles in shaping the IPCC reports.
What Jones said doesn't disprove anything about peer assessment.
What exactly do you think it proves?
Meanwhile here are some details about Mann's suit against Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan:
http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan
Pretend lawyers.
Sheesh.
When the paper was first published in the early 90's the standards especially in climatology were much lower than today. It now appears that Jones did nothing explicitly wrong, merely published with the data he had, inadvertently overlooking that several of the stations had changed location. Today, such a mistake would lead to a rejection, but in that era, such errors were relatively commonplace.
He said the flaws were ultimately the result of him trying to get data that wasn't easily available at the time to bolster and verify his conclusions. He states, "I thought it was the right way to get the data. I was specifically trying to get more rural station data that wasn't routinely available in real time from [meteorological] services." one oif the problems that exist for redos is that the stations used for the data have moved to disappeared. Jones certainly seems to be in a bad spot, following the leak and his temporary resignation, however many of his claims do seem to have feet. Many of his remarks were taken out of context (e.g. mistaking comments on assessment for comments on a peer review). again, anyone who works in research today is well aware that the standards of publication were much lower in 1990 than they were today. Thus, some of the inaccuracies can be explained by that. Subsequent research has shown what was claimed has panned out.
That the scientists reviewing the Jones' work didn't have the raw data, methodology and computer codes to do a proper review.
Mann might want to be more concerned with what the courts think of pretend Nobel laureates.
One indication how things have change might be taken from this
http://www.awi.de/en/news/background/climate_change/reply_to_climate_change_critics/
Interview on the climate debate: Criticism ignores the facts
Has global warming taken a break? This is the question asked in the new book by the two authors Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning which is causing quite a stir in the public debate on climate change. Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke, Head of Climate Sciences Research Division at the Alfred Wegener Institute and co-author of the IPCC report, and Prof. Dr. Meinhard Schulz-Baldes, Coordinator of the ‘Climate City Bremerhaven’, comment in the interview on the assertions of the climate sceptics and explain why for them the global climate report is the most credible scientific publication in the world.
Mr. Lemke, Mr. Schulz-Baldes, one argument of the critics is that science has so far underestimated the influence of the Sun on global warming. Which role does the Sun play in our climate system?
Peter Lemke: The Sun is most important for the climate because it determines the temperature on Earth. However, it is such a stable star that the energy that comes to us fluctuates only slightly. The much discussed solar cycles change the radiation from the sun only at the margins of the UV range. In terms of energy they have only a very small effect of plus-minus 0.5 watts per square metre. If it is considered that a solar energy of 1369 watts per square metre hits the outer periphery of our atmosphere per second and 30 per cent of this is reflected, this change in relationship to the overall area of our planet is only 0.1 watts per square metre, i.e. just about three tenths per thousand. It creates a change in temperature of only a few hundredths of a degree and accordingly is not sufficient to explain the current climate fluctuations alone. For this reason the IPCC Report also states very clearly that the natural fluctuations of the Sun account for only around five per cent of the temperature change.
This energy balance is one aspect – what about the influence of the Sun’s winds? It is said that their particle flows influence the formation of clouds in the atmosphere.
Peter Lemke: The particles which penetrate the atmosphere primarily in the Polar Regions are far too small to serve as condensation cores for clouds. Apart from this, there is so much dirt and dust in the atmosphere – just consider the dust clouds carried from the Sahara to Brazil and depositing iron in the ocean. With so much dirt and pollution these additional and very small particles play no role at all in cloud formation.
If the Sun plays only a subordinate role, what are the driving forces in climate change?
Peter Lemke: Firstly, we have natural climate fluctuations such as the Ice Ages or the Small Ice Age. The causes are to be found in the change in the distance between Earth and Sun and are characterised by the interaction between atmosphere, ocean and ice. These are all systems in which fluids, gases and also ice move and as a result of internal physics and complicated interactive mechanisms prefer one status and then another.
Meinhard Schulz-Baldes: Secondly, there is long-term warming. Our climate is greatly influenced by the composition of the atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, helium and methane. These gases reflect the heat radiation back to Earth, causing the greenhouse effect. Fortunately, we must say, because if this greenhouse effect did not exist at all, the temperature at the Earth's surface would be an average of minus 18 degrees Celsius. However, the problem is that the composition of these gases has altered very dramatically over the past 100 years. The carbon dioxide content in the air has increased by 35 per cent over a period from 1750 to 2010. In view of this observation we also know that the increase in these gases has a very significant influence on the temperature on our planet.
Peter Lemke: The impact of man is reflected precisely in the long-terming warming. If we consider the global annual temperature data, we see a long train that represents warming. The natural fluctuations also ride on it every year such as caused by the El Niño phenomenon in the Equatorial Pacific or by the North Atlantic Oscillation. This means that the natural fluctuations sometimes veil the anthropogenic effects.
How does man contribute to climate change and are the anthropogenic influences comparable with the magnitude of natural influences?
Peter Lemke: Man started to influence the climate system when he discovered agriculture thousands of years ago. He cleared the virgin forests for his fields, thereby altering the water cycle and energy balances for example. A field reflects radiation differently to a forest. 200 years ago the greenhouse gas emissions increased rapidly, causing the carbon dioxide content in the air to rise steeply. 78 per cent of this increase is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural gas. The remaining 22 per cent were caused by altered land use.
One idea in the current discussion is that global warming has come to a standstill. Do you share this viewpoint?
Peter Lemke: No, not at all. If we consider the global annual temperature data, we can see that we have not had a “normal year” since 1978. “Normal“ means that the annual average temperature is commensurate with the average values of the years from 1950 to 1980. It is also becoming clearly evident that warming continues. But the natural fluctuations are riding this long-term trend so to speak. For example, 2010 was the warmest on a global scale since the start of weather records 130 years ago, even if Germany had a rather cold year in view of the hard winter. The following year 2011 was then tenth of a degree cooler. But it would be nonsense to say that warming was on the retreat. Climate changes are manifested over decades. Data from at least 30 years are required to determine a climate trend.
No other scientific publication is scrutinised as strictly as the IPCC Report
A large part of current criticism is directed at the IPCC Report, the report from the Global Climate Council. Professor Lemke, you coordinated one of the chapters in the 4th IPCC Report yourself and are currently working on the fifth publication. How accurate is this Report from the Global Climate Council?
Peter Lemke: The German expression "Global Climate Council“ is incorrect in my opinion. It gives the impression that there are a few people who decide here. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for short, is a UN board with representatives from all UN member states. These delegates from 195 nations have commissioned the scientific world to write a climate report every six years – and they also determine which scientists will assume the function of lead coordinator for every individual chapter. These people are selected on the basis of scientific criteria and are certainly among the best experts in environmental sciences in the world. .......
http://www.awi.de/en/news/background/climate_change/reply_to_climate_change_critics/
Interview on the climate debate: Criticism ignores the facts
Has global warming taken a break? This is the question asked in the new book by the two authors Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning which is causing quite a stir in the public debate on climate change. Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke, Head of Climate Sciences Research Division at the Alfred Wegener Institute and co-author of the IPCC report, and Prof. Dr. Meinhard Schulz-Baldes, Coordinator of the ‘Climate City Bremerhaven’, comment in the interview on the assertions of the climate sceptics and explain why for them the global climate report is the most credible scientific publication in the world.
Mr. Lemke, Mr. Schulz-Baldes, one argument of the critics is that science has so far underestimated the influence of the Sun on global warming. Which role does the Sun play in our climate system?
Peter Lemke: The Sun is most important for the climate because it determines the temperature on Earth. However, it is such a stable star that the energy that comes to us fluctuates only slightly. The much discussed solar cycles change the radiation from the sun only at the margins of the UV range. In terms of energy they have only a very small effect of plus-minus 0.5 watts per square metre. If it is considered that a solar energy of 1369 watts per square metre hits the outer periphery of our atmosphere per second and 30 per cent of this is reflected, this change in relationship to the overall area of our planet is only 0.1 watts per square metre, i.e. just about three tenths per thousand. It creates a change in temperature of only a few hundredths of a degree and accordingly is not sufficient to explain the current climate fluctuations alone. For this reason the IPCC Report also states very clearly that the natural fluctuations of the Sun account for only around five per cent of the temperature change.
This energy balance is one aspect – what about the influence of the Sun’s winds? It is said that their particle flows influence the formation of clouds in the atmosphere.
Peter Lemke: The particles which penetrate the atmosphere primarily in the Polar Regions are far too small to serve as condensation cores for clouds. Apart from this, there is so much dirt and dust in the atmosphere – just consider the dust clouds carried from the Sahara to Brazil and depositing iron in the ocean. With so much dirt and pollution these additional and very small particles play no role at all in cloud formation.
If the Sun plays only a subordinate role, what are the driving forces in climate change?
Peter Lemke: Firstly, we have natural climate fluctuations such as the Ice Ages or the Small Ice Age. The causes are to be found in the change in the distance between Earth and Sun and are characterised by the interaction between atmosphere, ocean and ice. These are all systems in which fluids, gases and also ice move and as a result of internal physics and complicated interactive mechanisms prefer one status and then another.
Meinhard Schulz-Baldes: Secondly, there is long-term warming. Our climate is greatly influenced by the composition of the atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, helium and methane. These gases reflect the heat radiation back to Earth, causing the greenhouse effect. Fortunately, we must say, because if this greenhouse effect did not exist at all, the temperature at the Earth's surface would be an average of minus 18 degrees Celsius. However, the problem is that the composition of these gases has altered very dramatically over the past 100 years. The carbon dioxide content in the air has increased by 35 per cent over a period from 1750 to 2010. In view of this observation we also know that the increase in these gases has a very significant influence on the temperature on our planet.
Peter Lemke: The impact of man is reflected precisely in the long-terming warming. If we consider the global annual temperature data, we see a long train that represents warming. The natural fluctuations also ride on it every year such as caused by the El Niño phenomenon in the Equatorial Pacific or by the North Atlantic Oscillation. This means that the natural fluctuations sometimes veil the anthropogenic effects.
How does man contribute to climate change and are the anthropogenic influences comparable with the magnitude of natural influences?
Peter Lemke: Man started to influence the climate system when he discovered agriculture thousands of years ago. He cleared the virgin forests for his fields, thereby altering the water cycle and energy balances for example. A field reflects radiation differently to a forest. 200 years ago the greenhouse gas emissions increased rapidly, causing the carbon dioxide content in the air to rise steeply. 78 per cent of this increase is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural gas. The remaining 22 per cent were caused by altered land use.
One idea in the current discussion is that global warming has come to a standstill. Do you share this viewpoint?
Peter Lemke: No, not at all. If we consider the global annual temperature data, we can see that we have not had a “normal year” since 1978. “Normal“ means that the annual average temperature is commensurate with the average values of the years from 1950 to 1980. It is also becoming clearly evident that warming continues. But the natural fluctuations are riding this long-term trend so to speak. For example, 2010 was the warmest on a global scale since the start of weather records 130 years ago, even if Germany had a rather cold year in view of the hard winter. The following year 2011 was then tenth of a degree cooler. But it would be nonsense to say that warming was on the retreat. Climate changes are manifested over decades. Data from at least 30 years are required to determine a climate trend.
No other scientific publication is scrutinised as strictly as the IPCC Report
A large part of current criticism is directed at the IPCC Report, the report from the Global Climate Council. Professor Lemke, you coordinated one of the chapters in the 4th IPCC Report yourself and are currently working on the fifth publication. How accurate is this Report from the Global Climate Council?
Peter Lemke: The German expression "Global Climate Council“ is incorrect in my opinion. It gives the impression that there are a few people who decide here. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for short, is a UN board with representatives from all UN member states. These delegates from 195 nations have commissioned the scientific world to write a climate report every six years – and they also determine which scientists will assume the function of lead coordinator for every individual chapter. These people are selected on the basis of scientific criteria and are certainly among the best experts in environmental sciences in the world. .......
......What happens now and who writes the texts?
Peter Lemke: These coordinators are given a team of lead authors who then write the corresponding chapters of the individual report volumes. There are three volumes and each volume has ten to fifteen chapters, sometimes more. And there are two authors for each of these chapters who bear responsibility and coordinate, and around ten authors who contribute content to the chapter. That makes around one hundred authors in all. These scientists then first write all their chapters for the zero version of the Report. This version is then circulated amongst the scientists involved for comments. The first version is then written and published. From this moment on every scientist in the world can register as appraiser of this first version and comment the text. The cut-off date for the new Report was a few days ago. Typically several 100 to 1000 comments are made per chapter. I received around 700 annotations at the time and then had to edit these.
How do you and the other lead coordinators deal with such comments?
Peter Lemke: The question asked is “Is this a critical argument? Or does the colleague simply wish to have a piece of work quoted? Or is the requested content already in the Report and simply hasn't been read correctly? It takes a lot of time to integrate all of this into the text. But in this way a second version is created which is sent to all nations. It is then reviewed once more and corrected so that it can be said of the final third version that there is no other scientific publication which is scrutinised so strictly as the some 900 pages of the IPCC Report.
How are critical voices and studies dealt with during this development process which question recognised concepts?
Peter Lemke: They are all contained in the IPCC Report. Every scientist can register as appraiser and submit comments. And of course comments are included which say that the Sun plays a role, for example. This is why there are also chapters which describe the solar influence very well. It should also be considered that in addition to the three main volumes there is an 80-page "Technical Summary" and a 16-page "Summary for Policymakers". The former covers the most important aspects of the three main volumes and is written by scientists. The shorter “Summary for Policymakers” is reviewed in the board of the 195 national delegates and discussed line for line.
Why is this procedure adopted?
Peter Lemke: The idea behind this is to formulate statements such that they may be understood by politicians all over the world. Some countries naturally attempt to dilute critical remarks. The final “OK“ is given by the scientists, however, who accompany these discussions. This is a tedious and tough procedure every time.
But content can only be presented in a compact form on 16 pages.
Peter Lemke: This is true. The Summary for Policymakers contains only that which is really important. For example, that solar influences play no important role in the current warming. The main report must be referred to for all further information. The problem is that many critics of the IPCC Report refer solely to the ”Summary for Policymakers”.
Meinhard Schulz-Baldes: The decisive aspect of the IPCC Report is that in the end all states accepted this “Summary for Policymakers“. And by taking this step they also recognise its scientific basis, i.e. the main report. The report therefore becomes a document of the United Nations and world opinion in this sense. A solid consensus is created on which further work can be done. In the area of energy and biodiversity a similar approach is currently being attempted but there is no comparable scientific document to date.
If you take a look at the arguments of the critics: is there a scientific foundation for any of their points?
Peter Lemke: There are naturally many questions we ask ourselves. The greatest sceptics of climate research are climate researchers themselves because they are constantly collecting new data, generating new knowledge and therefore improving the world view of how our climate system functions. Newton was right for a few hundred years – until Einstein came. The discussion with sceptics and critics is always good for science because it challenges us to look for and also name uncertainties. We have done this in the Fourth IPCC Report and will continue this approach in the next Report. But the main points of criticism that the Sun is responsible for everything and that warming has stopped since 1998 and that cloud formation is influenced by cosmic radiation – all this is based on a very weak scientific foundation and has not been proven. The current criticism therefore ignores the facts.
Meinhard Schulz-Baldes: It will be fatal if political conclusions were to be drawn from these unsubstantiated points of criticism. One conclusion is “We are not in so much of a hurry when it comes to climate change and don’t need to do anything yet“. In my view this infringes the precautionary principle which we fortunately have in German politics. We will always have to act with uncertainties; we will never know about things completely. If, however, there is such an overwhelming and unique scientific consensus on climate change and its causes we must take political action. To believe that we could risk an experiment on Earth would be a fatal conclusion. This is why we can only welcome the opportunity to do something against warming as quickly as possible and throughout the entire world. Particularly because it will affect other countries far more greatly than ours.
Peter Lemke: These coordinators are given a team of lead authors who then write the corresponding chapters of the individual report volumes. There are three volumes and each volume has ten to fifteen chapters, sometimes more. And there are two authors for each of these chapters who bear responsibility and coordinate, and around ten authors who contribute content to the chapter. That makes around one hundred authors in all. These scientists then first write all their chapters for the zero version of the Report. This version is then circulated amongst the scientists involved for comments. The first version is then written and published. From this moment on every scientist in the world can register as appraiser of this first version and comment the text. The cut-off date for the new Report was a few days ago. Typically several 100 to 1000 comments are made per chapter. I received around 700 annotations at the time and then had to edit these.
How do you and the other lead coordinators deal with such comments?
Peter Lemke: The question asked is “Is this a critical argument? Or does the colleague simply wish to have a piece of work quoted? Or is the requested content already in the Report and simply hasn't been read correctly? It takes a lot of time to integrate all of this into the text. But in this way a second version is created which is sent to all nations. It is then reviewed once more and corrected so that it can be said of the final third version that there is no other scientific publication which is scrutinised so strictly as the some 900 pages of the IPCC Report.
How are critical voices and studies dealt with during this development process which question recognised concepts?
Peter Lemke: They are all contained in the IPCC Report. Every scientist can register as appraiser and submit comments. And of course comments are included which say that the Sun plays a role, for example. This is why there are also chapters which describe the solar influence very well. It should also be considered that in addition to the three main volumes there is an 80-page "Technical Summary" and a 16-page "Summary for Policymakers". The former covers the most important aspects of the three main volumes and is written by scientists. The shorter “Summary for Policymakers” is reviewed in the board of the 195 national delegates and discussed line for line.
Why is this procedure adopted?
Peter Lemke: The idea behind this is to formulate statements such that they may be understood by politicians all over the world. Some countries naturally attempt to dilute critical remarks. The final “OK“ is given by the scientists, however, who accompany these discussions. This is a tedious and tough procedure every time.
But content can only be presented in a compact form on 16 pages.
Peter Lemke: This is true. The Summary for Policymakers contains only that which is really important. For example, that solar influences play no important role in the current warming. The main report must be referred to for all further information. The problem is that many critics of the IPCC Report refer solely to the ”Summary for Policymakers”.
Meinhard Schulz-Baldes: The decisive aspect of the IPCC Report is that in the end all states accepted this “Summary for Policymakers“. And by taking this step they also recognise its scientific basis, i.e. the main report. The report therefore becomes a document of the United Nations and world opinion in this sense. A solid consensus is created on which further work can be done. In the area of energy and biodiversity a similar approach is currently being attempted but there is no comparable scientific document to date.
If you take a look at the arguments of the critics: is there a scientific foundation for any of their points?
Peter Lemke: There are naturally many questions we ask ourselves. The greatest sceptics of climate research are climate researchers themselves because they are constantly collecting new data, generating new knowledge and therefore improving the world view of how our climate system functions. Newton was right for a few hundred years – until Einstein came. The discussion with sceptics and critics is always good for science because it challenges us to look for and also name uncertainties. We have done this in the Fourth IPCC Report and will continue this approach in the next Report. But the main points of criticism that the Sun is responsible for everything and that warming has stopped since 1998 and that cloud formation is influenced by cosmic radiation – all this is based on a very weak scientific foundation and has not been proven. The current criticism therefore ignores the facts.
Meinhard Schulz-Baldes: It will be fatal if political conclusions were to be drawn from these unsubstantiated points of criticism. One conclusion is “We are not in so much of a hurry when it comes to climate change and don’t need to do anything yet“. In my view this infringes the precautionary principle which we fortunately have in German politics. We will always have to act with uncertainties; we will never know about things completely. If, however, there is such an overwhelming and unique scientific consensus on climate change and its causes we must take political action. To believe that we could risk an experiment on Earth would be a fatal conclusion. This is why we can only welcome the opportunity to do something against warming as quickly as possible and throughout the entire world. Particularly because it will affect other countries far more greatly than ours.
What makes you think you need the raw data to do a review?
You need to have access to the raw data if flags are raised during the review, but you don't need to see the raw data of every study for every peer review. That would be saying that you need to redo every experiment by every person for a review. Arguing this point only shows your lack of understanding of the process. Climatologists who do peer review already have access to the data from their own work, and the history of data from working in the field, if things look very unlikely they'll ask for the data and check it, but if the work makes sense you don't need to see and verify every temperature reading ever made.
Why don't you ask your fake lawyer buddy?
Oh, he's probably too busy faking up a defense.
The committee concluded those practices need to change.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hc-387-i-uea-final-embargoed-v2.pdf
Perhaps the fake "Nobel laureate" can explain what really happened when he takes the stand.
And things have changed, the data is now available.
But the main point, is that they could have asked for the data if there were flags raised in the papers.
Now its totally open, and before it was just opened if you asked.
Not a big difference either way.
By the way, enjoying the freak hurricane?
Extreme weather is one of the predictions for climate change.
What kind of year has record dry spells, weird spring freezes that killed our apple crops, near or record heat and a freak hurricane in one year?
