Climategate in the Popular Media

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:54 pm

Academia? What about the Lobbyish? Coal industry, Transport Industry, Petrolumn Industry, etc etc etc
Don't tell me that Academia weight is even close to the power and influence of these industry?


Again, 2 different issues. Sure business has as much or more influence on legislatures as academia. But the research itself is mostly done by academics. The key academics and their funding sources are generally biased on this issue. Climategate is the smoking gun that reveals the extent to which some of these people will go to support their biases. Also, businesses are upfront about their biases, not too difficult to figure out what their bottom line self interest is. It's more insidious if academic/scientific research is being corrupted, because politicians and newspaper editorial boards often take what they say on face value without as much independent due diligence.

I have tried to analyze some of the details myself rather than accept what some editorial writers or UN commissions tell me.
A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction

The models all assume water vapor feedback that approximately triples the temperature effect of the greenhouse gases alone. We do not have any evidence what, if any (it could even be negative) the water vapor/cloud feedback effects actually are. I don't assume GHG are irrelevant, but if they are overstated by a factor of 3, that would certainly go a long way toward explaining decade long flat periods where the GHG effect is offset by other factors like aerosols from 1940-1970, PDO, El Nino, solar effects etc. in the current era. And it also brings the prospective warming into the manageable vs. crisis mode. Particularly since even the advocates admit CO2 impact is logarithmic, not linear.

Obama is no doubt intelligent enough to figure this out, but there's no way he'll spend the time given what else is on his plate these days. I'll bet he won't expend a lot of political capital on climate change vs. issues that are more important to him like the economy, healthcare and Afghanistan.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:48 pm

Again, I couldn't agree more with Tony. I believe Tony has a very rational approach towards climatology.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Admin » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:27 pm

And here's the first step onto the slippery slope:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01645.html

Continuing an apparent trend in the current administration's practices, this constitutes an end-run on legislation, enacting regulations from an agency that has to answer to no one when the administration can't get what they want the normal way.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:05 pm

Admin wrote:And here's the first step onto the slippery slope:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01645.html

Continuing an apparent trend in the current administration's practices, this constitutes an end-run on legislation, enacting regulations from an agency that has to answer to no one when the administration can't get what they want the normal way.


Not going to talk about the current Canadian adminstration or the previous US one.

rfarren wrote:Again, I couldn't agree more with Tony. I believe Tony has a very rational approach towards climatology.


Rational approach??? It's like a deficit, the later you deal with the problem, the greater the cost.

It was found a few years ago that some of the denialists in academia had some funding by industry that were against fighting global warming.

This debate from , let's denial there is a problem, reminds me of the 50s...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhvHB62ph8[/youtube]

Here are couple of human smoking cigarettes walking among dinosaurs. They must be creationist, why believe the science?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvHiiWFbBU[/youtube]
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:49 pm

Patrick wrote:It was found a few years ago that some of the denialists in academia had some funding by industry that were against fighting global warming.



It was found out a few weeks that those in the highest places in academia ringing the bell on man made global warming were rigging the data. I wonder what led them to do this? Perhaps it was funding?

The comparisons to global warming and cigarettes in the 1950's is a totally nefarious at best. One (cigarettes cause cancer) had an overwhelming amount of evidence that was concrete. The other (man-made global warming) has an overwhelming amount of "evidence" in the form of speculation. i.e. crude computer modeling. Just because the earth is warming isn't enough evidence to say that we are responsible for it. Remember: correlation is not causation. The raw data doesn't seem to point to run away global warming. However, the raw data does say that cigarettes cause cancer.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:15 am

May I remind you that the reason why it was such a big deal that those emails were hacked was because it showed that the hockey stick graph of global warming was a total fabrication. In fact, if the scientist in question had been consistent with the data they used, the graph would have shown a cooling of the environment in the last 50 years. The key to this is: the largest piece of evidence behind man-made global warming is that apparently the earth is warming at a faster speed than at anytime we know of (based on ice-core readings, Co2 records in fossils, tree rings etc.) However, it was this hockey stick graph that showed it, and when we re-examine the data, the warming doesn't seem as fast we thought.

Many of the runaway warming scenarios are based on feedback, i.e more ocean in the north so more warming, so more methane gets released, etc. The affect of these variables are entirely based on speculation and models. Mind you, these are the models that can't create hurricanes and didn't predict a cooling of the earth the last ten years. But let's visit the feedback scenario again, and say due to natural causes the earth has been warming since the 1850's. Perhaps these feedbacks accelerated the warming that was due to natural causes. My point is merely: there are a lot of variables that affect the climate and to focus on only one seems foolhardy. When one considers that humans account for less that 3% of the carbon released in the environment, and that the heat trapping properties of Co2 is algorithmic and not linear, I think questioning this all is very healthy, if not rational. Whereas, wholesale buying into what has turned out to be not so peer-reviewed science, comes off almost like religious fanaticism.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby flyover » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:39 am

Tony Crocker wrote:The variability in climate is such that, according to one of the references I posted earlier, the simple hypothesis "the world has stopped warming over the past decade" is true so far only at a 75% confidence level.


http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/pr ... 69_en.html

Any thoughts?

Also, businesses are upfront about their biases. . .


I'm sorry, but any industry that can dream up and then market the concept of "clean coal" with a straight face . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM

I guess "less horrifyingly filthy coal" wouldn't have quite the same ring to it.
flyover
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:17 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby rfarren » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:13 am

I guess "less horrifyingly filthy coal" wouldn't have quite the same ring to it.


The truth is that the energy sector is not the largest contributer to greenhouse grasses, in fact the largest sector contributing to GHGs is livestock/agriculture. So, if you think people are willing to give up meat, then I think we can begin to talk about real GHG mitigation. Whereas, I believe most people aren't willing to pay more for food, nor are willing to give up their dietary habits. So, if indeed, global warming does start a runaway cycle and the world is in real danger, wouldn't it be more economical and more feasible to engineer to climate.

Sorry, if it sounds like I just read super-freakonomics then yes, I did.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:47 pm

Also, businesses are upfront about their biases. . .

What I mean is that if an electric utility or coal company says, "we can burn clean coal," the natural reaction for an external observer would be to investigate the claim closely, because the proponent has an obvious interest. It didn't take long for me to form an opinion that clean coal is currently in the :bs: category. Science is supposed to be objective, making raw data freely available to independent observers to test. That sure doesn't seem to be the case with these climate models. And now we find that such efforts are actively obstructed.

The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).

Completely dodges the question. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) If temperatures rose through the 1980's and 1990's and are flat for the past decade, the above statement is still true, as any third grader looking at a graph could figure out. The inconvenient truth is that these same models in the late 1990's predicted that the temperature rise would accelerate in the next decade, which of course it would if GHG were the dominant driver of climate. Direct quote from New Zealand scientist Kevin Trenberth in the hacked e-mails:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.


Here's what another scientist wrote to Phil Jones:
...the possibility that we might be going through a longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent coldish years.


Summary of climategate issues:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/c ... more-13209
More detail:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri ... -this.html

The truth is that the energy sector is not the largest contributor to greenhouse grasses, in fact the largest sector contributing to GHGs is livestock/agriculture.

Not sure I believe that. At least for CO2 the rise in atmosphere levels corresponds to the fossil fuel burning era. Livestock/agriculture have been around for a long time, and while I'm sure they have been increasing since 1850, not likely at anywhere near the rate of fossil fuel use. I think the CO2 data is cleaner and less subject to fudging than the temperature data.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Patrick » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:06 pm

Climategate, only an issue with the skeptics and the interests that don't want a deal like Saudi Arabia.

The stolen emails and except of stuff to try to show the data was manipulate isn't going to discredit 20-30 years of research by thousand of researchers. :brick:

Heck, I bet (if I had time) I could even find some comments of Tony's praising how great Eastern skiing is. :rotfl:
Ski Mad World
A blog of MadPat's World: A History of Skiing Geography
http://madpatski.wordpress.com
User avatar
Patrick
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:19 am
Location: The Great Trip 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby flyover » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:19 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:
The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).

Completely dodges the question. If temperatures rose through the 1980's and 1900's and are flat for the past decade, the above statement is still true, as any third grader looking at a graph could figure out.


Sorry, maybe I don't remember enough of my third grade math classes, but I still don't get it. How can the above statement quoted from the Report (that the 00s are warmer than the 90s and 80s) still be true IF temperatures "are flat for the past decade?" In order for the 2000s to have been warmer than the 90s, there must have been some increase in temps at some point over the last 9 years, right? I understand the graph may be a good deal flatter than it was in the 80s or 90s. I also understand that the flattening of the graph conflicts with the predictions, but if the 00s were/are warmer than the 90s, aren't we really talking about a lack of acceleration in the rate of warming, or better yet, a deceleration in the rate of warming, and not a "lack of warming" over the last 9 years?

I am decidedly not a numbers guy, so I'm asking, not arguing.
flyover
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:17 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:52 pm

If one set of ten numbers is 91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100 and the second set is 100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100,100 the average of the first set is 95.5, the average of the second set is 100, the first set is increasing but the second set is undisputedly flat. The second set could be 100,99.5,99,98.5,98,97.5,97,96.5,96,95.5, now decreasing, but the average of 97.75 is still higher than the first set and could still be "the highest decade of the past 150 years" or whenever record keeping started.

In the real world the numbers are not smooth during increasing, decreasing or flat decades due to annual weather variability. That lack of smoothness can make it difficult to determine what the actual trend is. Thus the comment that "the past decade is flat" only has 75% confidence by some statistical measure. It is also very easy to manipulate data. Make the first year of your trend El Nino 1998 and the last year La Nina 2008, fit a line to that and you'll say temperatures are decreasing. AGW advocates like to start their trends in the 1970's because temperatures increased by any measure in the 1980's and 1990's while they were mostly flat from 1940-1970. It's often difficult to analyze claims on either side of this issue because an advocate/skeptic doesn't necessarily have to make false statements; cherry-picking the right data is a very effective way to strengthen one's case.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Washington Post article summarizes opposing views of Climategate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04511.html
It includes this graph of temperatures, illustrating last decade looking flat even though it contains 9 of the 10 warmest years:
Image
FYI the NY Times and LA Times mention the hacked e-mails, but are dismissive of them in news stories as well as editorials.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Admin » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:04 pm

Gee, from those 2 papers that's such a shock! :roll:

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10013
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Climategate in the Popular Media

Postby Tony Crocker » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:39 pm

I doubt the Washington Post is viewed as much if any less liberal than the other two, but perhaps they have higher standards of objectivity in the newsroom. I was often struck by the Wall Street Journal in this regard in past decades. Despite its conservative editorial page, I was often surprised how many of its front page news articles raised issues that could support liberal viewpoints. I haven't seen it much recently, so I don't know if that's still true under Murdoch.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 10149
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use

cron