Climategate in the Popular Media

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
I'm the first one to comment about outlier data points. But it takes collective amnesia for the Quebecers to say with a straight face how
less snowy their winters have become over the past 15-18 years
in view of what happened 2 years ago.

And with regard to long term data, in all 8 North American ski regions that I analyze there is no discernable trend in snowfall over the past 35 years.

As Patrick notes correctly precipitation trend does not necessarily follow temperature trend in either direction. There are probably some locations where there is noticeably more rain/less snow than in the 1970's, but the ski areas for which I have data do not seem to include any of them, with the possible exception of the Whistler base.
 

jamesdeluxe

Administrator
To clarify my comment about the Quebecois who were so upset about environmental change, far more of their comments were about the average temperature than about snowfall. Also, according to them, vicious NCP events that go all the way up to Quebec City (like the one three weeks ago) were far less common a couple decades back. I mentioned this in a Le Massif piece I did for Alpine Zone five years ago:

The night of my arrival, temperatures shot up into the mid 40s. The next morning, I drove north on scenic Route 138 through a near monsoon — the kind where it's raining so hard, even with your windshield wipers at the ultra-high speed, you still can't see anything. On radio talk shows, people were shaking their heads in disbelief at what had happened to their sacred winter.
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=3238

For the record, the global warming debate is, oddly enough, one of very few topics on which I don't have a very pronounced opinion.
 

Skiace

New member
Bumping this thread with an interesting news update. After two inqury's, the group has apparently been exonerated.

Press release of the inquiry:
The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.

You can read the full inquiry here

They have criticisms of the statistical methods used, but are saying that the underlying research and results are sound nevertheless.

EDIT: I got this from Slashdot, haven't found a mainstream news outlet article on it yet.
EDIT2: Apparently it was in the NY Times a month ago http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/scien ... itbrf.html
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
After two inqury's, the group has apparently been exonerated.
The inquiries seem rather narrowly focused upon the tree ring studies. As I've mentioned before, it's likely that temperature data over the next decade will sort out this debate to a large degree. Climategate has probably served a useful purpose in that future climate data collection will likely be subject to more disclosure and independent verification.
 
Yea, nothing like knocking the hornet's nest off the corner of the house to stir up trouble. Admittedly, the new study, widely publicized recently, does seem to be a more comprehensive and reliable review of the data on global temperatures, although I'm sure some scientists will find ways to criticize it before long. Furthermore, they apparently make no conclusions about what may be causing the warming that they detected in the data. Temperatures have fluctuated over the 4.5 billion year history of the earth.
 

Geoff

New member
berkshireskier":rqwrx8ww said:
Temperatures have fluctuated over the 4.5 billion year history of the earth.

Nobody is arguing the fact that temperatures have gone up 0.911°C in the last 50 years. What is open to debate is why the temperature went up. You could defend a theory that it is caused solar fluctuation about as well as you could defend greenhouse gasses or thermal absorption of previously reflected energy from man paving the world with black asphalt.

Since nobody knows for sure, it makes sense to try to limit man's impact on the environment. ...but good luck getting China or India to sign up.
 

Patrick

Active member
Geoff":39v6b7fk said:
but good luck getting China or India to sign up.
Why would they sign on? What is there per capital contribution to the problem?
If Americans Politicians would be put in China or India's shoes...they would argued that it's going to hurt our economy.
Why the different standard of living? Why can the people in the West have x cars per capital, huge home and consume like crazy while we cannot expand our economic.
The accumulated green-house gases have been accumulating for decades and what was our input in this? We just got started building our economy and it's a hoax by the West to keep us in poverty to remain the dominate power.

You're right, it's not going to be easy. Unfortunately it was for the West to start showing their good faith by getting the ball rolling, but North American Federal Governments + Australia and Japan totally failed on this. Lucky some local initiatives are helping, but it's isn't enough without clear leadership at the top level.
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
+1 to Geoff's comments, pretty much sums it up.

I am impressed by the effort to validate the 100 year change with much spotty or contaminated data and I have no reason to believe those numbers aren't right. I wonder if they noted the plateau of the past decade+ as GHG production has accelerated.
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Patrick":yvq0rvn2 said:
Geoff":yvq0rvn2 said:
but good luck getting China or India to sign up.
Why would they sign on? What is there per capital contribution to the problem?

Are you effin' kidding me? Seriously? :roll: When you're talking about the two most populous countries on the planet, "per capita" ain't the issue.
 

rfarren

New member
Patrick":dyarijgv said:
Why the different standard of living?
:brick:
UGHHH!!! Come on... you love to ski, perhaps the most carbon intensive hobby in the world.... talk about different quality of life.

This just bespeaks on something I don't even want to get into....

Tony Crocker":dyarijgv said:
+1 to Geoff's comments, pretty much sums it up.

I am impressed by the effort to validate the 100 year change with much spotty or contaminated data and I have no reason to believe those numbers aren't right. I wonder if they noted the plateau of the past decade+ as GHG production has accelerated.
[/quote]
Bingo... I'm pretty sure we're experiencing serious global cooling over the last 15 million years, even more markedly so over the last 4.5 billion.
 

rfarren

New member
Admin":3ofgt2o4 said:
Patrick":3ofgt2o4 said:
Geoff":3ofgt2o4 said:
but good luck getting China or India to sign up.
Why would they sign on? What is there per capital contribution to the problem?

Are you effin' kidding me? Seriously? :roll: When you're talking about the two most populous countries on the planet, "per capita" ain't the issue.
+1
 

Patrick

Active member
rfarren":2z5m3399 said:
Patrick":2z5m3399 said:
Why the different standard of living?
:brick:
UGHHH!!! Come on...

If Americans Politicians would be put in China or India's shoes...they would argued that it's going to hurt our economy.
Why the different standard of living?

If you guys can dictate that China or India can't come even close to the North American standard of living even before we can make an effort.

Admin":2z5m3399 said:
Patrick":2z5m3399 said:
Geoff":2z5m3399 said:
but good luck getting China or India to sign up.
Why would they sign on? What is there per capital contribution to the problem?

Are you effin' kidding me? Seriously? :roll: When you're talking about the two most populous countries on the planet, "per capita" ain't the issue.

Per capital GHG? US and Canada produced approx 800% more than China and 1600% more than India. (regardless of the table and calculation used - the huge margin is there).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

So do you think there are going to make a sacrifice before any serious effort on our part? It like talking about people around a buffet table with one big fat guy with his plat over flowing versus a family of 4 with the same amount of food divide between them and the fat guy talking about they should cut down on the food they consume.

Stop looking and thinking about yourself first, if you think other countries are going to make the first step without a more from the US, it ain't going to happen. That is the problem, everyone is thinking, why should I go anything if the others don't. :dead horse:
 

rfarren

New member
Patrick":qz90qrh4 said:
Stop looking and thinking about yourself first
I agree, and so should you. Stop flying to South America and Europe, quite driving to ski, and stop skiing. I think that should take a huge bite out of any carbon foot print. So, shall we start?

If not, that comment is no less than hypocritical.

BTW, just because one lives in the US doesn't meant they don't do their part. As you say, it's all about personal responsibility.
 

Geoff

New member
Patrick":28ir6ixg said:
Stop looking and thinking about yourself first, if you think other countries are going to make the first step without a more from the US, it ain't going to happen. That is the problem, everyone is thinking, why should I go anything if the others don't. :dead horse:

The jump in energy costs has done a pretty good job of trimming the average American's carbon footprint. Over the last 30 years, car fleet MPG has improved from sub-20 MPG to more than 30 MPG. SUVs and Pickups are still very inefficient but large SUV sales are way down. People started paying more attention to insulation and air leaks in their houses. The newest housing stock is almost too tight and you can have air exchange problems if you often have a lot of people in the house.

I still can't believe how much my electric bill dropped last summer when I went from window AC units to a mini-split. I flipped over to LED lighting for the lights that are used most often. I'm happy with the light from the new Philips bulbs. 12 watts vs 60 watts makes a big difference. I have a modern refrigerator that is efficient. The only energy hogs are my plasma screens and they're pretty new so they're only about a 40% penalty compared to LCD screens.

Economics controls people's energy behavior. If energy is expensive, people will take steps to be more careful. $4.00/gallon gasoline and $3.00/gallon home heating fuel is enough to change behavior.
 

jasoncapecod

Active member
I flipped over to LED lighting for the lights that are used most often. I'm happy with the light from the new Philips bulbs. 12 watts vs 60 watts makes

Those bulbs are $40 each :shock:
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Patrick":37b6cenu said:
If you guys can dictate that China or India can't come even close to the North American standard of living even before we can make an effort.

Really? I should somehow feel guilty because I have a first world standard of living?

You're right. I'll give up my indoor plumbing. I'll ride a donkey to work. I'll live in a leaky hut and burn wood for fuel and heat until there are no more trees left for miles around. I'll have a dozen kids (oh, wait...I live in Utah...nevermind). What's this "skiing" thing you talk about?

Well, I'll be darned, you're right -- I feel better about myself already.

(Oh, and Geoff: +1 again.)
 

Patrick

Active member
rfarren":30cjget0 said:
Patrick":30cjget0 said:
Stop looking and thinking about yourself first
I agree, and so should you. Stop flying to South America and Europe, quite driving to ski, and stop skiing. I think that should take a huge bite out of any carbon foot print. So, shall we start?

If not, that comment is no less than hypocritical.

BTW, just because one lives in the US doesn't meant they don't do their part. As you say, it's all about personal responsibility.

The "You" was a collective one. :roll: I didn't say I was perfect. Funny, each time someone is critical of the continental behaviour and asking for more action and effort, someone comes up with ... you fly, you drive, you heat your home without even looking in the mirror. Everyone can do better, including myself.

On the flying things or other aspect of the carbon footprint, I pretty comfortable with mine compare to some others. I rarely rent cars, limit flying, one car family with 2 kids and a Sentra that those 15000 miles a year. Garbage equivalent per week: 1 small plastic bag. Over the past 15 years always the same even when we had kid in diapers.

Whatever, there is problem...please continue as you were going.

Admin, the reason why China and other developing countries aren't going anything is the same reason why the US isn't moving. "We are not willing to sacrifice our growth or economy" Same debate in China as in the US or Canada. Anyway, everyone knows that GW is a socialist hoax. ](*,)
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
Patrick":3r2avg0b said:
everyone knows that GW is a socialist hoax.
It really doesn't matter whether it's a hoax, 100% true, or as in my opinion a small and uncertain probability that we should be taking out some insurance against.

Geoff":3r2avg0b said:
Economics controls people's energy behavior. If energy is expensive, people will take steps to be more careful. $4.00/gallon gasoline and $3.00/gallon home heating fuel is enough to change behavior.
This is the bottom line. People will not change behavior because Patrick or Al Gore want them to feel guilty. I have solar panels that cover 2/3 of my electric consumption because the federal and state incentives made it worth my while. I'm sure my carbon footprint is still obscene from all the plane travel.

As I've said before there is room to move the incentives some by increased energy taxes (half on carbon, half on OPEC imports would be my preference). These should be offset $ for $ by reduced payroll taxes to neutralize the issue of more government spending. Payroll taxes discourage entry level job creation and hit lower income people much more than energy taxes. So a win-win for the economy IMHO.
 

Marc_C

Active member
Tony Crocker":12k1asef said:
As I've said before there is room to move the incentives some by increased energy taxes (half on carbon, half on OPEC imports would be my preference).
Why target OPEC and not the producers from where we purchase the majority of our oil?
 
Top