Anthony Watts over at Watts Up With That has a breaking story about unknown hacker or persons breaking into the East Anglia Climate Research Unit’s database. The over 61 megs of data “appears to be genuinue” considering the herculean task of creating emails and other sundry data of such magnitude.
I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents
The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.
It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.
I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.
Watts has the text of some of the huge file’s emails posted on his website. Saunter over to the first link above to read at his site.
Of special note is CRU’s Prof. Phil Jones’ admission of fudging the numbers to hide the temperature decline.
[Emphasis added by Mata]I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 or NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Another email was from another associate, Jonathan Overpeck, discussing a proposed letter to the Senate to combat the “continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill”. Overpeck is less than thrilled at being part of alterating data to comply with political aims, suggesting that such nefarious deeds were best left to other organizations.
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. [Emphasis added by Mata] It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this – e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate change.
Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond, then…
I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Dissention in the CRU ranks over a scientific “concensus” has been growing, noted by Watts in his May 2009 post, where Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (aka CRU), Mike Hulme, shed his closet AGW proponent sheeps clothing, and actively started speaking out against the science behind the UN’s IPCC paper. In an interview with UK’s The Register, he is quoted as saying:
“To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining both politics and science”
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit – currently overloaded with cyber traffic – posted that CRU cancelled all existing passwords… saying “actions speak loudly”. McIntyre – a veteran in the mineral exploration business – focuses on analyzing “peer reviewed publications” that purport the AGW theory.
Stay tuned… Anthony and crew are atop this story.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that this is NOT a massive attempt to make us skeptics look the fool.
And if it proves out, I hope to see algore in jail before the end of the year.
Suspect billionaire Gore could buy his way out of any legal situation, Otter. And he can always play the dupe card as a defense for his propagation of global panic for decades.
Did you see what Sen. Imhofe said to Babs Boxer on Global Warming: “We won, you lost, get a life”
It might be a bit premature but I LOVE IT!
If you want to see how desperate the Warmers have become, check this out:
Global warming now causing an increase in prostitution and Aids….
Early response from the scientific community:
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Speaking of the resident Fear Monger…. I wondered how long it would be before WARMER LARRY checked in!
I’m glad to hear Larry pass along a link describing how it is “illegal” to hack someone’s email. What a shame we didn’t see Larry and his buds express similar outrage when Sarah Palin’s email was hacked during the campaign!
@Mike: The main thrust of the realclimate.org response was not about the illegality of email hacking, it was about the the fact that, scientifically speaking, it’s much ado about absolutely nothing. In fact, as the blogpost points out, this was a comprehensive body of correspondence from people who thought they were talking among themselves, and there isn’t the slightest hint of fraud, global conspiracy among liberals, or even off handed remarks about the need to keep the research money gravy train flowing.
For the record, I didn’t — if memory serves — get involved in any aspect of the hacked Palin emails. I didn’t take the time to express outrage of the Palin hacking (it was done by a kid) and I’m not going to express any outrage about this hacking, either. Neither, in fact, do the realclimate.org editors. They simply say that such things are inevitable and that people should keep this in mind when they decide what type of language to use in their private emails, which is very good advice, which we have all heard from other sources.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Climate Depot takes a slightly different view from the SPIN you are offering:
Year by year evidence showing the dishonesty among climate “scientists” continues to mount.
WARMERS dishonesty seems to correlate perfectly with the drop in temperatures.
Yes of course Larry…..nothing to see…nothing to hear…move on, move on. Did he, or did he not discuss how they could counteract data that actually showed cooling? THAT was the question…which they clearly did not answer. And secondly, would you consider such behavior “normal” (as they suggest) in the realm of scientists who were “studying” or investigating or researching anything? ??? It may very well be normal course of business for “global warming” research…but it sure doesn’t sound like there is any “science” in it at all to me. More like agenda driven advertising.
@DC: Here’s what they say about your quote, above:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Thanks for the added emails and links, Curt.
Larry, perhaps you may find it interesting to know that Steve McIntyre from Climate Audit, referenced in my post above, specifically founded that website to combat the personal assaults against him by your provided link, realclimate.
Thus the continued assault in their naysaying link, expectedly provided by you. Like Mike, I was waiting for you to post the easy path to the obvious…. those linked and with a vested interest in hiding the scientific truths.
So in response, they predictably bash McIntyre, insinuate… with no supporting evidence… that the correspondence was likely edited… and inadvertently mention that the scientific community indeed has no consensus.
What a piss poor attempt at a media whitewash.
As for your posting of their “explanation” of fudging the figures, they explicitly state it is intended to make sure “the context of the recent warming is clear”. Conversely, one has to ponder whether it’s so “clear” without the fudging of temperatures.
Nor has anyone one stated it was “secret”, as realclimate attempts to portray. Quite the opposite as many voices have overtly spoken of how these figures and models are fudged, morphed, massaged and mutilated by the scientific community in order to preserve some unholy alliance with politicians. realclimate’s attempt to diss this, or reduce it’s import by saying there “isn’t much to it”, only confirms it is a practice they are aware is going on… and that they are wholeheartedly behind that practice of making it “more clear” in order to advance an agenda.
I will once again repeat Prof. Mike Hulme’s comment when it comes to playing the game of “liars figure, and figures lie”.
Notice that even back in May, Hulme… ALSO from the CRU… was using the phrase “hide”. So much for realclimate’s case, busted by CRU’s own.
Also, since you have this natural inclination to ignore hotlinks, I might quote a few more things from Hulme’s May 2009 interview:
Hulme isn’t a “denier”, but he most certainly is a “skeptic” when using what he considers a politically narrow base of sciences to, as he says, “artifically create a consensus”. For placing merely his toe over the “consensus” line, he was the recipient of hate mail from “very well respected academics”.
The point of this post is to prove to the climate gullible… of which I believe is a category you concisely fall into… that the advocates are pulling no punches to beef up what thin, narrow data they have. And that even those who may be inclined to give the subject weight find this trend despicable.
Mata…. proud coiner of the Obama title, “Eunuch-in-Chief”. (BTW, may any and all of you feel free to use it with my blessing)
@MataHarley: Can we split the royalties and combine my “WARMERS” thing with your “EUNUCHS?”
How about WARMER EUNUCHS?
Let’s ask Larry how he feels about that. Maybe he wants to use it on his holiday cards….
LOL! Did you have a “warmer in chief” that I missed, Mike? Hey, you can have half of my “nuttin'” royalties without question.
Actually that tag line was to Larry, and a comment he made on another thread when he said “someone” on FA had referred to Obama as the Eunuch in Chief. I’ve been using that for quite a while, and perhaps he didn’t wish to point the finger specifically at me.
I’m just letting him know I’m quite content to be known as the person who refers to the occupant of the Oval office, and commander of our military, as the Eunuch in Chief… sans any apology nor regret.
Need popcorn …
Larry,yes…I guess I’ve just never been around when scientists referred to analysis of their data as using “tricks”. Who would have thought that would be a common scientific term?? And for my next trick…..shorten up my sleeve……presto….global cooling is now global warming. (sigh)
Yo larry! Explain to us why they felt it neccesary to REMOVE the 1940s warming trend, eh?
Real scientsts follow scientific methods which include Publishing You Data And Methods. Why don’t the warmists do that? They refuse to release data or methods. That alone reduces the entire thing to a ‘faith based belief’. Real scientists don’t hide anything. A real scientist dares anyone to take their data and methods and disprove his theory. A real scientsts is eager to see if anyone else can see it in a new way. But not Hansen, Mann, or the Goracle. They refuse to debate Inhofe. They refuse requests for data. They make excuses saying they ‘lost’ the data. They refuse to discuss their methods. And as the veil is slowly forcfully stripped away we discover one liar after another. These warmists are not scientists. We are actually in a cooling phase and the planet has been cooling for the last eleven years.
I’ve downloaded the entire file (160mb), It is truly damning. They even express joy at one of their own scientists dieing, who was beginning to express doubts about their “science”. My daughter is helping me turn the e-mails from Notepad docs into Word format so that it’s easier to read.
As I have been saying for 10 years: This is the largest fraud ever perpetrated on this planet. Hundreds of billions of dollars up in smoke, billions of tonnes of foodstuffs burned in our motors.
If one of you Mods want the file, drop me an e-mail, and I’ll zip it back up to send you. The servers that have it are very overloaded right now.
I have been on top of this crap for many years, and the Warmist’s have nothing based on any facts or evidence whatsoever. It’s become religious in-nature…witness the defense of the Mann Hockey stick than has been debunked for 4 years now from our own commenter’s.. Mann refused to release his methodology (thus HIDING IT), until his math-modeling was inadvertently released in an obscure document later, and McEntyre got a hold of it. NASA itself re-did their math, and determined that the ’30’s were the hottest decade, NOT THE 90’s, but no one in the piss-stream media bothered reporting it.
The defenders of the Church of the Holy Goreacle will now bend every rule of logic to defend their Prophet, even those who portend to have scientific backgrounds. They can do an objective study of the affectation of a particular chemical-interaction with cancer cells, but refuse to accept that water vapor is responsible for 99% of the global-warming effect, nor accept that CO2 increases follow, not leads temperature increases, or that water absorbs IR in the same bandwidth as CO2, (other than one small spike in the band that reflects, not aborbs heat.)
Cool, Patvann…. do you think you can add some excerpts from the file to the thread for those of us who simply don’t want 161mb file?? It may finish even a zip download on my rural DSL speed right about the time social security and Medicare are totally bankrupt…..
I’m not sure if your analogy implies your up-load speed is fast or not. 😉
Steve M is probably going to release the best stuff faster than I can, but my crack-staff of 4 teenage girls are combing through it as we speak…or type, what ever the case may be. 🙂 (16-port home networks are handy for this sort of thing.)
They are going after this like crackheads needing a fix, and as long as I can supply munchies, music, and Monster they won’t quit. I will post as we find stuff.
My brother and his UC-Berkeley daughter is on the way over with 3 friends to hook in with laptops to further the quest and arrange the e-mail threads.
They sure talk a lot about money…usually how to get it, then hide it. Here’s a segment of the very first e-mail re-coded:
(From Tatiana M. Dedkova” )
@Patvann: Sounds like you have quite a war room going over there. I’m not sure what MONSTER is, but be sure to keep it up and keep the girls motivated.
“Monster” is the energy drink that keeps the young American awake.
My GAWD I’m having fun with this!!!! Surrounded by pretty girls, cranking the tunes, collectively smashing my nemesi, with a brother, and my hero-son by my side. Last night, we all spent the evening at the Marine Corps JROTC ball.
You can kill me now. I’d die a happy man, for all is well in my world. 🙂
TURN UP THE ALLMAN BROTHERS!!!
I am begining to have a better hold on what we have here. In a word, Incredable. While the youngins are tasked with coalating 1072 e-mails, my brother and I have been going over the “documents” file. Lots of Word-docs, PDF’s, and such.
The common thread to all of this, is the focus on the deception. It became a science unto itself. Here is a sample on how they handle an internal data-difference within a report they are putting together: (I will bold the phrases that denote this process) This was an intro/pre-review of an internal report from 2004, typos left on purpose, because I hate them all, and wish to further point out their idiocy. This is from one of the lead-reviewers of the reports being readied for public release:
This may take a while, as every freaking report seems to have this sort of “newspeak” and tactical diversion within it, and many reports and internal updates are quite long. These “corrections” are in-fact added constants to the models they bash us with. In this report, they are actually looking to find a way to NOT have the models be so exact, as to lend credence to their “scientificness”.
-But I fear them not, as it only girds my loins.
Here is how they fake (or “corrected”) sea-level data from actual-measured (From an internal e-mail to the “boss”)
Take notice how they are shaping the data to fit the model.
(Begin quote from e-mail)
Mike, these are the extra sea level parameters which are set in the Magmod.cfg file. The variable names are as in the bold letters above the table ie T1990 etc.
Table 11.16: Parameters used in sea-level projections to simulate AOGCM results:
T1990 gl990 dBglT dBGT dBAT dTGT
AOGCM T1990(˚C) g1990(m) ∂Bg/∂Tg(mm/yr/˚C) dBG/dTg(mm/yr/˚C) dBA/dTg (mm/yr/˚C) DTG/DTg
CSIRO Mk2 0.593 0.022 0.733 0.157 -0.373 2.042
CSM 1.3 0.567 0.021 0.608 0.146 -0.305 3.147
ECHAM4/OPYC3 0.780 0.027 0.637 0.029 -0.478 1.153
GFDL_R15_a 0.635 0.015 0.576 0.121 -0.177 1.879
HadCM2 0.603 0.027 0.613 0.096 -0.214 1.441
HadCM3 0.562 0.021 0.622 0.085 -0.354 1.443
DOE PCM 0.510 0.017 0.587 0.136 -0.484 2.165
(It’s in Excel in the report, so it won’t format pretty-like here.)
One of my posts is stuck…Please release me, let me go.
From: Phil Jones
Subject: FW: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day joins
Date: Tue Nov 10 16:35:20 2009
I thought that this didn’t happen.
From: Lyndsey Middleton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 10 November 2009 2:43 PM
To: C G Kilsby
Subject: Helpdesk query 1489: Hourly data have discontinuities at day joins
Another Weather Generator query for you. It was raised by Richard Watkins of Manchester
University (and COPSE project) following a visit from Roger yesterday.
Can you let me know your response please?
Long Description=The hourly data from the Weather
Generator have discontinuities at each
midnight join. The e.g. temperature
jumps, may be as high as 9C. The
hourly data seem to have been generated
independently for each day, rather than
fitting a curve from the maximum of one
day to the minimum of the next. The
minimum to maximum curve, i.e. within
each day, is fine.
Could the Weather Generator be altered
to produce more realistic hourly data
by fitting from Tmax to Tmin the
following day, please? This would be
helpful particularly for any use of the
data for building simulation with planted
UK Climate Impacts Programme
School of Geography and Environment
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY
They are discussing how to manipulate input data within the “model” to more closely match reality. The e-mail following this one, includes the C++ code to do what they recommend, so as not to look so blatantly biased. The code included was verified by my Father who helped invent H-Assembler while at IBM in the 70’s. He speaks programming like Shakespeare speaks English.
“Weather Generator” is their name for the code.
My brain was starting to hurt, so I brought in a big gun…Now my Daddy is here, so we have 3 generations of overtly sceptical and curious people here, along with quick-clicking computer-savvy youngsters.
Consider this an official request for a “reader post”, Patvann!
Good Lord, Patvann!
You and yours are doing God’s work for sure!
My hat is off to you all.
I echo Mata’s reader’s post request.
We have yet to begin…All I’ve posted is the stuff that comes along without any prioritation.
A Reader-post is in the works, but there is more to disseminate first.
The hard part is getting all this inner-workings communication (done within a community that already knows waz-up with each other) into a single-form in which everyone reading outside that circle can capture the nuance within it.
But it can and will be done. I’m a giver. 🙂
LOL!!! That’s great!
Somehow I had a feeling one of you would take my plea to it’s logical place!
PV, I salute you and your crew of patriots. Outstanding!
And then came dad! So happy for you, your outstanding kids will always remember this. the night they took on the world wide global warmers, scientists yet! Three generations slapping down a fraud that is about to do great harm, proving Algore and his slimey peers to be the greedy culprits they are, total fakes.
Look at who you have right under your roof, outstanding! We have to get you all some hero tights and capes!
Missy, I like the cape idea, but tights? Maybe for the girls but not PV and the guys!
@DC (#8 and following):
About the “trick” thing. Here’s an explantation from the realclimate.org website (where the number of comments, many very scholarly and informative, is now up to over 800 !):
This is just one example. Other commenters provided additional examples from math and science. All of the issues are being discussed there. It’s balanced, critics make sharp points and the editors respond, and I’d recommend it:
With regard to Patvann’s ongoing labors:
Quite a coup for FA to have this “scoop” on your blog.
I’m thinking of the criticism which has been raised, concerning the replacement of the MSM (with their former legions of investigative reporters) by the blogosphere (where most of the effort goes into editorializing and relatively little goes into digging out and reporting the news, in a form where it is accessible for blogoshere editorializing). There have been exceptions: great example being the bogus GW Bush National Guard performance evaluation. This effort by Patvann may be another example.
From what I’ve read to date, I am nowhere near as outraged as many of you guys seem to be. I’ve seen this again and again and again, in the world of biomedicine. It began in the mid 1950s, with the first studies indicating a potential health risk to smoking. The risks turned out to be real, but it took a long time to convince the public (decades), in part because there was much contradictory data. When clinical trials researchers write papers, there are frequently controversies regarding inclusionary criteria for data and exclusionary criteria for data. Then, one step beyond this, there are similar controversies concerning which studies should be included in what are called meta-analyses of published data, to arrive at conclusions strong enough to change medical practice. This was seen in the recent past regarding the issue of the harmfulness of second hand smoke (where there has been a lot of controversy concerning inclusions/exclusions/one-sided versus two-sided statistical tests of significance, etc.). Most recently of all are the controversies concerning mammography screening and prostate cancer screening. I’m sure if there were similar email hacks of the investigators involved in all these examples, there would be language of a similar nature, which could be easily perceived as data manipulation to support a favored hypothesis. But this is entirely different from fraud or fabrication of data, and even isolated instances of overt bias (people being people, there will always be this sort of thing going on) do not necessarily invalidate underlying truths.
Regarding two of Patvann’s prior points:
1. Water vapor being stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. True, but there is an equilibrium. There is no net addition of water to the earth’s surface and atmosphere, but there is an ongoing net addition of new CO2.
2. CO2 spikes followed temperature spikes, rather than preceding them. True, but this is because what’s happening today never happened before. It’s unprecedented. In the past, something else (sunspots, orbital eccentricity, whatever) would initiate a little warming. As the oceans warm, they give up CO2 (like heating a soda) and atmospheric CO2 rises. This in turn, increases and perpetuates warming. But past was past and present is present. What’s happening now is that CO2 is being released in vast amounts from previously-sequestered carbon. Thus, CO2 is driving temperature increase. In THIS case, the rise in CO2 clearly preceded the rise in temperature.
I’ve written before that my biggest concerns are the biomedical aspects of living with (still rapidly increasing) levels of CO2 that have never existed in the history of homo sapiens. Gore only got into climate change secondarily. His hero is the Harvard professor who was the first to document the rise in CO2, which is indisputable. So his initial interest was just the CO2, per se. This was during the “global cooling” era of the early 1970s. It was only much later that scientists got the idea that CO2 might be a greenhouse gas which might cause climate change. So Gore latched onto that. There is very little data on the effects of chronic higher levels of CO2 exposure. Most of the human research is simply on the effects of short term exposure, most importantly on nuclear submarines. I previously discussed the bioenergetic, mechanistic reasons for concern, as will as providing an overview of the fragmentary research which further supports the view that rising CO2 levels are a plausible biomedical concern.
This will be my last post on this topic on this blog.
Once again, hat’s off to Patvann for his valuable work in making the information in the “hacked” files much more accessible for scrutiny.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Probably so, if his father, brother and son are as tall as Pat, we would have to find a factory willing to retool their production line to make tights big enough to fit them. That could get expensive.
Interesting article written by James Delingpole:
they are also having a hot discussion in the comment section. Is captainsherlock a conspiacist? wonder if any of it is true. Lot’s of fascinating information in the debate.
captainsherlock @ 4:08
Missy, I think bright red would be a great color. PV could rent a porta potty for the back yard and the men can make desperate dashes to the out house to drain the mineral water they are drinking with the capes flowing out behind them. The neighbors will surely report the strange behavior and the local news channel will come out to film this news event. It could make the national news. Our band of heroes need capes for sure!
First I agree with Larry that having Patvann and family is not only a coup, but an educational blessing. hear hear for those discontent with headline byte educations.
It would, however, appear that Larry is one of the last diehards to abandon the cry of “global warming” in favor of a more broad term, “climate change” in order to perpetuate the int’l legislation meant to control the world’s economy and technological advances. i.e., man’s impact with CO2 emission and the undeniable fact that the world is cooling instead of the warming trend from the past decades.
First, man’s impact overall on any greenhouse gases as opposed to natural causes.
The above graph is from Monte Hieb’s website. “Warmers”, as Mike’sA coined, like to diss Hieb because his specialty is mining engineering and fossils. He is not a “climate” specialist, they like to say.
However, as the entire thrust of this post illustrates, even those that wish to give weight to “climate change/global warming”… i.e. Mike Hulme, CRU’s unknown FOIA whistleblower, and the Pielke’s… insist that the range of sciences involved in researching what is happening with the earth’s traditional warming/cooling cycles is far too narrow. Not to mention that the few sciences that are leading the agenda charge are playing games with the numbers in order to manipulate public opinion.
This is contrary to all morals and ethics of science.
But back to man’s CO2 contribution… which can be attributed to manufacturing, farming, power generation and transportation. The solutions to lessening what is already a negligable contribution have far more serious consequences economically, and technologically. Do we cease manufacturing, farming, stop generating power and limit transportation? Of course not.
Instead they suggest that int’l guidelines of cap and trade… in essence keeping the status quo by allowing one to “over pollute” if another “under pollutes”… simply limits one country’s development over another. Granted, I doubt that anyone – even we skeptics or deniers – have a problem with cleaner technology. But not at the risk of destroying economic survival at the lowest levels, or yielding constant stable power over dependence on Mother Nature for wind blowing, sun shining or ample rain for hydropower.
PETA wants to world to become vegetarians in order to limit methane emissions… which, at .066% is just slightly half of man’s contribution via the afore mentioned activities at .177%. If we ignore water vapor, man’s CO2 contribution is 3.207% of greenhouse gas contributions. This means that, overall as a group, methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC’s and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases at 3.298%. Hear anyone screaming about regulating these as more important?
As to Larry’s firm assertation of CO2 preceding temperature spikes as a “unprecedented”, it is a common rallying cry for the narrow science gullible. Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That had a post devoted just to this global warming thin argument. Rather than post lengthy excerpts from the excellent graphs and points made in his Guest post by Denmark’s Frank Lansner – a civil engineer, biotechnology – I’ll let you peruse the article itself. (Note: keep in mind that English is not Lanser’s first language)
The thrust of the article is this… when you use CO2 as a definitive and primary source for temperature changes, you are playing with only one marble in the game. For he illustrates how identical CO2 levels drive different temperature trends. Or:
In other words every time it rains, it’s preceded by clouds. Conversely, everytime there is clouds, it doesn’t necessarily rain.
One can argue about which tiny percentage of man made emissions is more important to regulate – if it should be regulated at all – but the fact is you might as well spend a fortune trying to remove a single gnat from an elephant’s butt. We are but small potatoes in the realm of the earth’s natural cycles.
Despite the best efforts of man, this planet will die…. whether we ever inhabited it or not. Climate will always “change” and be relatively unpredictable. To assume we can control the climate by reigning in emissions is just breathtakingly short of self-proclaimed diety as a species.
Instead, the small focused segment of science that insists we are speeding up the demise of Earth will simply figure out a way to kill off man earlier by wreaking economic havoc in the name of “saving the planet”. And for all their oppressive regulations and rules, we will not have made an iota of difference in the earth’s timeline of existance.
Tights and capes? You people need help. 🙂
The ability of CO2 to hold heat in our atmosphere is most pronounced with only the first 20ppm. Because that ability is reverse-logarithmic, doubling the CO2 does not double the heat-holding ability. If 20ppm holds X, the next 20 holds half as much. The next 40 holds half of that. As you can see if plotted on a trend-line, the 380ppm we have now is doing next to nothing in regards to effect.
The primary reason all of the UN (and realclimate, which is their advertising department) models are wrong, is that they assume that CO2 is permanent. NO OTHER STUDY MAKES THIS ASSUMPTION, because Carbon and Oxygen bonds easily break apart and become parts of other molecules, or are cycled independently through other means. CO2 in the othe 60 or so studies has around a 25 year lifetime.
Some say CO2 has been causing the rise in temps. Sure. Let’s do the math to see exactly HOW much we’ve “caused”:
CO2 is .038% of the atmosphere.
Humans are responsible for 3.225% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Human’s CO2 is therefore .00122% of the atmosphere.
(Source: 4th grade math and a calculator.)
Total CO2 is responsible for 3.618% of the Greenhouse Effect Warming. (Source:NASA/UN)
Human CO2 contribution is responsible for .117% of the Greenhouse Effect Warming.
From 1900 to 2000 the temp went up .60degC.
(If we use 1909 to 2009, it went up .18degC)
(If we use 1890 to 1990, it went up .32degC)
Therefore, human-added CO2 was responsible for .000702degC of the warming between 1900 and 2000.
(Source: 4th grade math and a calculator.)
So let’s spend a trillion dollars to “fix” this, and the “best” way to fix this is to return to living as we did in 1912. Riiiight.
There is very little science being done within these documents. One of my favorite math formula that they use several times is the following:
Y = F (x) + E
Y: is the real climate, (as they define it, not actual-observed)
F: Model output of best choice of parameter values x
In other words, Making shit up, but making it look good.
PS Mt Pinatubo put out more CO2 in one week than all of human contribution in the previous 100 years…I guess it’s only human CO2 that “bad”, not nature’s.
PPS. My editor is on my butt to get a Reader Post going, so I better, or she’ll run me over with her Hog. (Hi Mata!)
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: If CO2 were such a problem then why do you support Cap and Tax plans which only TAX and not CAP manmade release of the gas?
Does anyone seriously suggest that if we adopted ALL of Al Gore’s agenda that manmade CO2 release would be capped or decline?
When are you going to figure out that CO2 isn’t the major driver of climate change Larry? And that the SUN actually is. What a surprise hunh?
The bottom line is that much more HONEST research needs to be done on the subject of climate change and I would focus first on the role of solar variability since that seems to be the obvious answer.
I know that doesn’t go over well with the WARMERS, many of whom depend on the scaremongering of manmade global warming to earn a living!
P.S. Which one of these WARMERS had the bright idea to measure CO2 by putting a gauge next to a VOLCANO? How does that reflect man’s impact on CO2 levels? How many other examples have we seen of measuring stations being placed in areas that are more likely to give erroneous results?
This doesn’t seem credible to me, given the following:
Where’s the 1991 spike?
Do you have a reference for the above quoted claim?
The following seem to track much better with the observed accumulation of atmospheric CO2 to current levels, which are, again the highest levels to which homo sapiens have ever been exposed.
@Mike: I’ve never written that I support cap and trade. I’ve supported simple carbon taxes, dating all the way back to John Anderson’s independent run for President, in 1980, when he proposed a 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax for reasons which had nothing at all to do with climate change theory, which, at the time, was nowhere on the radar. I think that discouraging carbon consumption is very good for the long term economic and and environmental viability of the USA. I also, being a good environmental liberal, take a “stewardship” view, regarding natural resources. I would like to preserve oil, so that my descendants can have some of their own petrochemicals, for example. I don’t view the earth’s non-renewable resources as something which any generation has the moral right to plunder, to feed its own prosperity, without regard to what we leave behind to pass along.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I changed it to 100 years less than a minute after I initially posted it. I should have noted the change within the body of the post immediately after I did it, but I wrongly assumed that because I made the change within 30 seconds, that it wouldn’t matter to anyone.
-That was not the right thing for me to do, as all changes should be noted. (Unlike the changes I am unearthing in my research into this debacle.)
When an agency or entity recieves a FOIA request, how would you (or anyone with a moral-sense) respond internally? If one feels secure in the methodology, one would not need to hesitate.
-Too bad our friends (Mr. Jones) have no moral sense, nor do they feel secure in thier methodology. To wit:
Doin’t worry Larry. When my Post is written, I will have no fear whatsoever is supplying links, data, and whatever else is needed to keep my integrity, and the integrity of my helpers intact….Unlike Mr. Jones.
Great work Patvann!
My intution is that the Russian server has not changed the data. Today the media(propaganda machine) has come out with a statement that seals it for me. That climate change is even worse than the “scientists” originally expected! Ha!…the liberals…denied, denied and attack, attack…
Warming’s impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – Sun Nov 22, 2:54 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.
As the world has talked for a dozen years about what to do next, new ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.
And it’s not just the frozen parts of the world that have felt the heat in the dozen years leading up to next month’s climate summit in Copenhagen:
_The world’s oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.
_Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.
Yes Larry….like the the cigarette/cancer issue in the 70s. But, you’ve got it backwards. The emails here..are very much like the ones that busted out the cigarette companies then..where it became undeniable that they knew of the cancer risk, etc…and fudged their data to hide it.
No sweat there, Patvann…. the good stuff always takes some time and research and isn’t fodder for instantaneous posting. I’m patient.
tapping toes, tapping toes…
OK, I’m frothing at the bit and you’ve got me hanging on with tidbits and orts in interim. But my hawg and I say, “no swine before it’s time”. We’ll wait, and behave until you’re ready.
I have been looking, but I have been unable to find a credible reference which supports the contention that the Mt. Pinatubo’s CO2 emissions dwarfed the CO2 emissions of humans for even one year, much less 100 years, much less 10,000 years. I am not angling for a gotcha or anything like that; I’d simply like to know. If your statement was correct, then I would immediately change my stand on the carbon emissions issue. However, I find it not only implausible, but wildly implausible. If you look at my links in #41, you’ll see that there isn’t the slightest hint of a CO2 anomaly in 1991, which I would think would be the case with such a massive emission, given that there is no credible explanation for the relentless rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution — accelerating after WW2 — than human activity. I can find apocryphal references to Mt. Pinatubo emitting more CO2 than humans on political blogs, but no hard data from any scientific source. Perhaps I need to go into the deeper pages of my Google retrievals, but I just can’t find anything credible to support your statement concerning Mt. Pinatubo and CO2.
I did find the following, which suggests that volcanic CO2 is negligible compared to human CO2:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
reply to #42 (concerning human vs volcanic CO2) went to spam.
I read your linked Watts/Lansner article and I am very unimpressed. Firstly, to be fair to both sides, here’s how they addressed the Watts/Lansner article at realclimate.org:
Now, you (Mata) put a lot of emphasis on the following statement from Watts/Lansner:
Well, I went to the (magnified) version of the graph fig 1, and I can’t find anything at all in those ice core records to compare with what is currently happening (and which is, indeed, unprecedented). Previously, there are only tiny little blips of spontaneous CO2 increases, no doubt whatever effect these had were overshadowed by other factors (sunspots, orbital eccentricities, whatever). But look at the HUGE, GIGANTIC, ENORMOUS CO2 spike which is happening right now (extreme right end of the graph). It’s truly unprecedented, and the explantations from realclimate.org make complete sense, and there is nothing at all in the Watts/Lansner article to contradict these explanations.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
*pant,pant,pant* Runnin my butt off here…
First of all, within the document section of the “hack-release”, they discuss the very thing you posted from realclimate to Mata in #48 (their admitted media-wing), yet within their own internal discussions, they are not so positive about it, and even discuss whether or not to be so “forceful” about it. (You’ll see this soon.) That “feedback” is hotly discussed, because of the unclear amount of the (small-heat-absorbing) IR bandwidth of the CO2 that makes it up high enough to make the hypothesized forcing that isn’t already covered up by the water-vapour absorption. (I hope that made sense.)
Second of all, regarding the volcanic CO2 volumes, I hereby masticate and digest Corvus corone cornix.
In thinking about it, I let it take hold without question since Pinatubo blew it’s stack, and some talking head on the local news that week said it. I should know better, and now I do.
In looking into it further, not even the super-volcanoes led to much of a “blip”. Extinctions and decadial winters, yes, but no substantial increases in CO2. In some ways it says something about how freakin big the organism we call earth actually is. Some papers hint that because of the cold-weather after-effects, the subsequent drop in temps helped mask the increases by absorbing it, and our present instrumentation has yet to detect that small drop within the signal.
But I consider that a stretch, as do most reviewers.
Others talk about the amount of methane and such, but again, the evidence is inferred, not observed.
Ug. I’m tired. I haven’t done this much reading and brainwork in 20 years, and tomorrow morning I can look forward to pooping black feathers.
BACK TO THE DOCS!!!
I’ve gotten a little back-logged on keeping up with the comments updates in my email so if this link is a repeat of one previously dropped in here a 1000 pardons. It was just kicked to me over at my site. It helps filter through the emails by using word search:
So, have at it and git `er dun!
I tried to use it Sunday, but it won’t go as deep as I want because It’s the individual sentences I want to read through. Yes, I am being that anal about it.. (Although this is handy to have)
The big grin is for knowing you’re still diggin in da dirt. 🙂