Shucks, we shoulda known!Photo courtesy Andrew Ciscel via Flickr With the Copenhagen climate talks upon us we learn that hackers recently broke into thousands of emails and internal documents from a leading climate research center and dumped them onto an anonymous Russian server. The hacked emails
(160 MB worth, unzipped) came from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). They allegedly include 10-year’s worth of exchanges between top U.S. and British climate scientists who were debating the latest developments in climate research. Global warming skeptics, the internet over, are using the (illegal) hacking to claim that global warming is a hoax, full of fudged data and dishonest, conspiratorial scientists. It’s “the global warming scandal of the century,” claim conservative bloggers.
A CRU spokesperson confirmed that their server was hacked; however, the spokesperson told the BBC that “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.”
The exchanges reportedly include discussions about climate data and how to respond to climate skeptics, a few blunt comments about the most fervent deniers, and one doctored photo of climate skeptics stranded on an ice floe. But the most controversial comments, plucked out of context, come from a private correspondence between CRU researcher Phil Jones and Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann (author of the infamous “hocky stick graph” of rising global average temperatures):
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards), and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” wrote Jones.
I’ll save you from the science wonkery and allusions here (check out RealClimate for a more detailed explanation), but noisy climate skeptics are jumping on two parts of that sentence. Guess which ones? Yup, “trick” and “hide the decline.”
Jones was referencing two sets of data on temperature change during the last decade. One used changes in tree rings; the other used thermometers. Both showed a rise in temperature until the 1960s, when the thermometers continud to record a rise and the tree rings did not. When other independent temperature measures confirmed the thermometer readings, scientists abandoned the tree rings data.
The legitimate climate scientists over at RealClimate have an indepth response to the allegations being made against the CRU folks, some of whom are RealClimate contributors. While conceding that “hide” was a poor choice of words, they translate the science slang at work here: “Scientists often use the term ‘trick’ to refer to ‘a good way to deal with a problem,’ rather than something that is ‘secret.”
“It sounds incriminating,” Michael Mann told Andrew Revkin of The New York Times about his email exchange with Phil Jones. “But when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there.”
RealClimate’s level-headed response to the event is worth reading, along with its active and excellently moderated discussion thread. Another point they make which is worth emphasizing in light of blog posts calling this “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science”:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’ [Grist note: MWP refers to “Medieval Warm Period”], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though ...
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. But it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person ... Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.
It appears that the original Russian FTP server, which held the illegally obtained files, has been shut down, although the files have now been uploaded elsewhere on the web.
A few things to keep in mind throughout this entire “scandal”:
- People—whether they are world reknowned scientists or your little sister—tend to use much more casual and joking language in emails than they would, for example, in a public statement or IPCC report.
- It’s easy, though inadvisable, for those of us outside of the scientific community to make sweeping assumptions about discussions of complex data sets.
- Climate change skeptics are always looking for an excuse to declare peer-review scientific data a “fraud.”
- How ironic—and convenient?—that this should occur in the weeks leading up to the biggest international climate talks to date.
As implicated researcher Michael Mann notes to the respected international scientific journal Nature: “The deniers will probably do anything they can to distract the public from the reality of the problem [of climate change], and the threat that it poses. Cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, stolen from private e-mails, is the best they’ve got.”
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
U.N. climate chief raises the temperature with racy novel
Comments
View as Flat
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:21 am
21 Nov 2009
Given the humane and able exercise of intelligence, innovation and ingenuity by the human family, the converging global challenges issuing from the human overpopulation of Earth, the conspicuous per-capita overconsumption of limited resources, the reckless hoarding of wealth, the ruthless degradation of the environment, the rapacious dissipation of Earth's body and soon to become patently unsustainable growth of the leviathan-like world economy are still manageable if we can act boldly and cooperatively now.... before humanity's "window of opportunity" to make a difference closes. The leaders of the single generation who are largely responsible for these challenges cannot continue to be richly rewarded for their arrogance, foolishness and greed as well as be allowed to willfully proceed down a "primrose path" advocating more of their same, old, unsustainable business-as-usual activities, only to end up dumping fulminating global threats to human wellbeing and environmental health into the laps of the children.
From this point of view only one colossal, human-induced challenge remains that is derived directly from a clearly recognized and plainly understandable imbalance of power.
Perhaps this is the proverbial "mother" of all human-driven global threats to human wellbeing, environmental health and the future of life as we know it in our time:
A few million Masters of the Universe
with billions of dollars
versus
a few billion human beings with feet of clay
and millions of dollars.
It appears that a tiny minority of leading elders in my not-so-great generation are deliberately mortgaging and threatening the future of the children by remaining self-righteously focused upon the endless accumulation of material wealth, the unrestrained increase in per-capita overconsumption of limited resources, and the continuous consolidation of power.
Despite all the flowery cascading rhetoric to the contrary, we need not look far to see that money, power and privilege for ourselves, our bought-and-paid-for politicians, and our newly-minted minions are the primary objects of our lives.
Regardless of the fulminating human-driven calamities visible on the horizon that could soon befall the children, we have consciously and willfully chosen to live long, large and free from responsibility for our behavior. Yes, we proudly live in a patently unsustainable fantasy world (We call it reality. You know nothing of its extent.) of idle comforts, effortless ease, multiple McMansions, rampant consumption, secret handshakes, exclusive clubs, exotic hideaways, mega-yachts, limos and private jets, having abandoned our concern for the less fortunate among us, for the maintenance of life as we know it, and for the preservation of the integrity of Earth. Think of our single-minded pursuit of material wealth, power, and privilege to profligately hoard and recklessly ignore the requirements of practical reality as a raison d’etre......the work of deity.
During the past 8 long dark years, we have learned that when too many leaders of my generation of arrogant, foolhardy and avaricious elders have completed their `mission’ on Earth, the children will likely look back in anger and utter disbelief at the things we have done so selfishly and failed to do so sanctimoniously………… all the while proclaiming ourselves Masters of the Universe doing God's work.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:37 am
21 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 11:58 am
21 Nov 2009
Here in San Diego, we have clear examples of the message and the actions dramatically diverging. They are out of whack when it comes to battles between environmentalist supporting solely rooftop solar and Sierra Club blocking Mexican wind development, transmission, generator tie lines, and local wind projects. How can you really justify blocking wind projects if the world is in an emergency sufficient to force people to give up coal, oil, driving, big-screen TVs, etc? Ok, maybe BIG SCREEN TVs can be justified. To ordinary people, their priorities are vastly different and they don't want to have their lives radically amended.
Then enter something like this "e-mail-gate" - my term - suggesting that climate change is a "hoax." Together, these two effects and many others are a very powerful message to the general public that "there is no problem, and even if there is, there is nothing we can do about it."
It's the collective effect of lots of signals pro or con which is the biggest challenge to people who are concerned about climate change. Ordinary people are taking their cues from snippets, things which reinforce their views, or which release them from the greater mental burden. There is nothing like an easy answer to attract adherents among those too busy to dig deeper.
As "convenient" - wink, wink - as this may seem to the environmental community and those on Grist in order to justify glossing over or rationalizing the issue, it is the PERCEPTION of a highly abstract proposition like "climate change" which is going to control how people react politically.
This is really dangerous stuff, not to be treated lightly, in my view.
Dan
Permalink
Chris Pratt Posted 4:03 pm
21 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 6:43 pm
21 Nov 2009
Dan
Permalink
brakmaster Posted 6:51 pm
21 Nov 2009
For example an email from Tom Wigley to Michael Oppenheimer says "I do not know how 'powerful' these alien opinions may be in the present..."
Another email from Keith Briffa to Paul Valdes says "...the only consideration in the discussion ( especially of proposals from alien boards) is whether or not there will be enough on the carcass for ones own."
Think deeply about these lines. The CRU are aware of powerful alien opinions that exist in the present, and perhaps the future!!!!! Also, aren't you nervous about the mention of a carcass? It would be a mistake to ignore the possibility that CRU may be working for aliens, and they may be cannibalizing their interns.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 7:16 pm
21 Nov 2009
Dan
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:39 pm
21 Nov 2009
Brakmaster, I thought your take was particularly humorous, hehehey.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:02 am
22 Nov 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:14 pm
22 Nov 2009
BTW. Bee network from Ted conference India!!
http://womaninhavana.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/day-four-ted-india-the-positives-of-negative/
"Anil Gupta illuminated the afternoon with a lecture on why “minds on the margin are not marginalised minds”. The Honey Bee network seeks to ensure that society can learn from grassroots innovators, giving examples of 70-year old Saidullah who developed an amphibious bicycle so he can cross the lake to meet his love, a two wheeler washing machine that can be brought to people’s doors to help women with their heavy domestic tasks and illustrated how these local solutions fit downwards, creating a place for small scale solutions in a globalised world."
The simple answers are already out there, like bees bring food source information back to the hive, hive-mind internet communication should be bringing grassroots successes to the new media hive.
This is what I been talking about. They say it so much better than I do. The message that can head off disaster?
Simple mass produced green inventions that fulfill all the requirements of modern life, safe water, plentiful food, electricty and information technology, waste recycling, all afordable to the poorest (with help).
Good enough solutions so that even the richest would be able to try the simple green lifestyle and admit it works and accept limitations on their profligate consumption, even if its only a week away from their jetsetting.
If Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffet lived this way for a week, would they get behind its mass production and availibility across the planet from the poorest to the richest? I think so.
Get the richest and poorest to happily squat on the same inexpensive mass produced squat toilets and the connection will be forged. Gotta make going "native" spaceship earther trendy. Then the hundreds of billions in investment dollars will show up from under mega-matresses.
To drive a 10s of trillions in green economic growth, through curbing consumption and increasing recycling, efficiency, renewables, and basic symbioisis between humans and the biosphere.
Permalink
georgiact Posted 8:21 pm
21 Nov 2009
If we put this issue to bed, we can move onto some real environmental issues, which is what I do everyday. However, working for a cash-strapped state, I see huge $$ wasted on "climate change." Those dollars could be better used to restore streams and wetlands, purchase land to limit fragmentation of habitat, implement better stormwater managment technologies, reduce nitrogen discharges, etc.
In government, I see the same group think. Not one person I work with can explain the science behind AGW other than to mention the greenhouse effect. All they know is that the IPCC is king. Then the EPA mearly advances the IPCC junk and it trickles down to the states without any critical examination.
How many more billions do we need to pour down this rat hole before we wake up to the fact that politicians, Mr. Gore, and others are staring at huge paychecks and more power? This is exactly how we got government to pay for ethanol, which you all know is a boondoggle and harms the environment more than iT portends to help. WAKE UP. CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE TO HAVE A REAL IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT AND ALL LIVING THINGS.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 9:51 pm
21 Nov 2009
Graphs and models are insufficient in their limited scope to provide us with an accurate timeline; scientists are not infallible prophets individually (they properly change their minds as new facts are acquired) but science itself cannot be fooled.
Human beings are the only species of life on Earth which can see the future and plan for it cogently. Unfortunately, we see it as through a
glass, darkly, and we prefer to live for today rather than make the effort to plan for tomorrow. Especially when the forecast is for rain, heavy at times, unsettled weather leading to drought, strong winds followed by mass migrations, food shortages, and a rapidly falling dollar. And it will all happen much sooner than we think.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:00 pm
21 Nov 2009
Well, as much as you would like to focus on those issues, if the numbers coming out on the accelerating ice melt mean anything - and they do - things are going to get pretty dicy here quite shortly. Since you work on these issues and have a science background, calculate the total energy absorbed by just the Greenland ice melt. I comes out around 25% of the total energy used in US in 2008.
For those who want to see about the effects on water supplies, take a look at this recent documentary on the radical reduction in water supplies due to asian glacier loses. http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice
But, for sure, don't worry about global warming, cause all that ice is no big deal. Let's focus on the habitat.
Best,
Dan
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 6:20 am
22 Nov 2009
Permalink
georgiact Posted 12:49 pm
22 Nov 2009
What numbers coming out of the accelerating icemelt are you referring to? And that is a big IF you're talking about. There are no accurate numbers for the overall ice budget/trend. Very few of the worlds glaciers have been tracked over time. Before satellite data, we really have little details about most glaciers. Arctic sea ice is inicreasing after a 30-year low in 2007. Greenland is not green like it was 1,000 yrs ago. The oceans are cooling slightly. As best we can tell, global temp. is flat or slightly declining.
It's very disturbing when scientists refuse to put their data and methods out for public critique. That is how science is supposed to be advanced! Instead it appears that we have cliques of scientists scheming with each other to push what they can't seem to prove on the scientific field of play.
Regarding CO2, if it were on a basketball team with all the other climate change impact characters, it would be 7th off the bench. It is a weak and trace gas with a narrow absorption band.
So I do not see why we should continue to waste large sums of money on a non-problem and focus on the ones we can affect.
regards.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:55 pm
22 Nov 2009
Kilimanjaro in the middle of Africa was topped by a glacier made famous by Ernest Hemingway. It is almost gone now and icecores drilled down to the bedrock of the volcano through the glacier contain elongated bubbles of air that indicate the oldest ice is rapidly becoming porous.
40 years ago, I traveled from Banff to Jasper in the Alberta Rockies and stopped as a tourist to see the Columbia icefields along the way (I still have some of the postcards as souvenirs) close to the highway. Recent videos show how far back up the valley the glacial ice has retreated. Alaskan glaciers are also in full retreat. Arctic ice is not expanding, but shrinking, both in thickness of ice floes and in extent of ice coverage (ask the polar bears and seals about that).
Arguing about numbers is merely deflecting concern about reality. We are in trouble now, and it's going to get worse very, very soon.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 5:22 pm
22 Nov 2009
To melt that amount of ice requires just a little extra energy in the environment, no? Like about 85 quadrillion BTUs.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 7:56 pm
22 Nov 2009
Computing it often requires large data servers and supercomputers. So unless you have a supercomputer lying around, it's kinda hard and very time-consuming to do climate modeling calculations yourself. Which, of course, is why we hire scientists to do it for us. Then we disparage them when their findings disagree with what we want them to say. It's kinda like hiring a plumber to fix a leaky faucet and then refusing to pay him because you're pissed the faucet isn't still leaking.
Except even more ridiculous because we're not even asking the scientists to fix the problem, we're merely asking them if a problem exists. So maybe it's more like hiring a plumber to come over and look at your leaky faucet and then getting mad at him when he asserts, in his expert opinion, that your faucet is in fact leaking:
"That's not what you're supposed to say! You're supposed to tell me it's fine!"
"But it's not fine, sir, it's leaking."
"Plumber, you're a dirty communist! I know: you're part of Barack Obama's Secret Muslim Kenyan Afro-Socialist Conspiracy to kill my job by taxing CO2!!!"
(This is when the plumber leaves your house because he's worried you're a violent paranoid schizophrenic.)
But if you're interested, you can find a general overview of the data on a site like http://www.woodfortrees.org/, though.
Permalink
georgiact Posted 12:51 pm
22 Nov 2009
Can you tell me what you mean by climate change? I think you really mean global warming. If so, that is what you should say for clarity.
regards
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 5:17 pm
22 Nov 2009
However, warming stems from a phenomenon referred to technically as "sensible heat" resulting from additional molecular or atomic translational behavior. However, additional sources of energy can be stored in the environment or in chemical systems for which no heat increase results. While not absolutely precise, this is typically referred to as enthalpy. An example is dynamite which is cool to the touch until it releases its energy as heat creating a blast wave and lots of hot air - sensible heat. The enthalpy is stored until it is released as heat energy.
Same with potential energy, as with a lifted body whose energy is converted into kenetic energy until is hits an object and then it becomes sensible heat to be transferred to the environment.
The same thing is occurring as ice absorbs energy in order to achieve a phase change at 0 degrees C. Hence the heat of fusion of ice versus the specific heat of water. 80 times as much energy gets absorbed by ice as water at 0 degrees C when it passes from ice to water.
Therein lies the massive importance of ice melt. Its like an integrand accumulating energy without any sensible heat response. But when the ice is small or gone, then things get more interesting in a hurry.
For that reason, I prefer the term climate change because it is more generally descriptive of what is taking place energetically.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 7:40 pm
22 Nov 2009
The semantics are intended to accommodate both idiots and skeptics who might not be willing to be reasonable about this issue. Namely, to acknowledge the vaguely legitimate question: "Durr, if the Earth are really gettin' hotter, like, why's my town gettin' cooler? Scientists are dumb communists!"
Global warming, as many skeptics may love to point out, isn't always accurate in every single geographical context. In some places, global warming might mean local cooling. It's a complex system and the term "climate change" is intended to better acknowledge that complexity.
Really, if everyone was open to talking about problems with the theory of global warming for purposes beyond simply reaffirming their preconceived and often ignorant political notions, such parsing as the term "climate change" wouldn't be necessary in discussions about the problem. But they're not; so it is.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:01 pm
22 Nov 2009
One item: whenever warmer equatorial air moves further north and south to the poles due to its increased energy content, displaced cold air from the poles is potentially pushed further back toward the equator - and more quickly. Since everything is trapped in one space, movement one place leads of movement elsewhere - with the adjustments made by a compressible fluid like moist air.
Hence the perception of colder weather in places due to global warming and a more energetic atmosphere.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 9:48 pm
22 Nov 2009
Ultimately, the term "climate change" makes it easier to talk about the problem without having to as frequently get into the details that you've mentioned here - although, by all means, it is often beneficial to talk about why it might be the case that a warming planet would manifest itself through lower temperatures in specific places.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 10:42 pm
22 Nov 2009
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 12:30 am
23 Nov 2009
Permalink
Pope john Posted 2:01 pm
26 Nov 2009
Now they have decided that the climate ins warming and unless we act immediatly.....
Oh well lets call it climate change and we must act immediatly or ...
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 2:15 pm
26 Nov 2009
I have always wondered who "they" are.
"They" are probably the same people with the black UN helicopters that are taking over America and are injecting socialist fluoride in the water because they are jealous of freedom.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 6:31 pm
26 Nov 2009
We have always had climate change going on since time began, but never EVER has either cooling or warming occurred at the fast and furious rate that AGW is happening to us right now. And never before has our activity (both in population increase and in release of carbon from fossil fuels) been so worldwide in scope. The connection is indisputable.
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 12:49 pm
23 Nov 2009
the hypothesis this article seems to be exploring is, does the hacked emails represent unethical representations of climate data.
well.....today we have new information from comments left in programming code that was found in the hacked files - to those with an open mind who want to explore the potential politicalization of AGW follow my link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065
the rest of you can stay here in the echo chamber
Permalink
Mike_G Posted 6:45 pm
23 Nov 2009
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP51C0663Y
My guess is that it performed some correction on tree ring data but because of the known problem with that data after 1960, they were using actual temperature readings instead. The comments are probably to remind them not to accidentally use that function on the wrong data. I assume the point is to use as accurate a temperature as you can. Makes sense to me and kind of interesting, but I don't get why anyone sees it as controversial.
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 1:10 pm
23 Nov 2009
Well, we must hand one to the deniers. Their criminal actions and criminal intent have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that scientists are human and engage in language not unlike other humans. Imagine. It is no wonder they've stopped the presses. When the next shoe drops we will find they eat and poop too.
A more salient point is that despite the deniers criminal activities the essential science of global warming remains as it was. The deniers only proved there is no global conspiracy linking climate scientist with Al Gore and covens of Druids.
I wonder if we obtained the emails from the denier's major sites if we would find communications between the deniers and big oil and coal. I bet we would. In fact, I bet we'd find there is little discussion at all about science and quite a bit about how to lie, misrepresent, and obscure the the words of legitimate scientists.
So why don't the criminal deniers release their own email stores so we can learn just what they communicate about?
Not likely, eh? I think we will find out soon enough.
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 1:17 pm
23 Nov 2009
anyhow my point as a scientist has always been lets keep collecting information.
if you frame this as denier etc. that polarizes the issue - science is hardly a slam dunk. you lay people just show your ignorance in this matter by choosing sides and being vehemently opposed to any discussion.
i have to admit that the hacked emails raise some questions. they are online everywhere for your perusing. how many of you throwing sand have spent any time looking at the emails? its a lot easier to send off grandiose email about deniers etc.
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 2:03 pm
23 Nov 2009
Further, I would much rather read the science, and scientists are more likely reading studies and building models than surfing obscure and bizarre denial web sites.
For the record, there is a huge difference between legitimate scientific and healthy skepticism and denialism. Real skeptics don't dispute that the humans are contributing to global warming or that by pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere there will be consequences. They may be skeptical about certain findings, aspects of findings, or have their own theories as to effects. Deniers just deny everything and anything to do with the science and no amount of facts, study, or in-yer-face evidence will change their little minds. Their soul mates are creationists who deny evolution.
We are talking here about our planet and all life on it. Yes, it is time to choose a side and I'm on the side of science and life. You can walk with militias, whackos, end-timers, the just-plain-stupid and death if you like.
Permalink
Joel W Posted 2:02 pm
23 Nov 2009
http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/australasia/australia/climate-change-deniers-holida/
I'd like to think that if they saw it with their own eyes they might stop babbling on about conspiracy theories. And even if is all the doing of free masons and one world government, what exactly is wrong with changing the way we live so we stop binging on precious resources like a fat kid in a candy store?
Permalink
nodoginthisfight Posted 3:28 pm
23 Nov 2009
Mechanisms for funding scientific inquiry are inherently flawed. They lead to the premature formation of consensus in any given field b/c grant money follows lines of investigation perceived as “promising”. Careers quickly become dependent on perpetuating the perception. This gives rise to irreducible conflicts of interest among scientists whose livelihoods depend on how their field is perceived. Perhaps this unpleasant news will move the needle on momentum for restructuring how science is funded.
In my training, I was taught that the most important experiments you perform are those designed to disprove your hypothesis. The publicly disclosed debate among these prominent climate scientists indicate that, at the very least, they were not consistently motivated by the ideals of the scientific process.
Indeed, it seems clear that they felt threatened by interpretations of the data that didn’t fit their hypotheses. Otherwise, why would they surreptitiously attempt to prevent publication of alternative readings of the data? After all, if they were confident in their work, they would welcome a public debate in the field, which would lead to more profound and permanent marginalization of inferior work.
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, I think this is good for science (even climate science). It leads us a little closer to the inevitable rewards that arise from the optimal practice of science.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 7:38 am
24 Nov 2009
Then there is all the work by Conrad Steffan who discovered that Greenland Ice is beginning to float on beds of water trapped between the ice and land, i.e. floating the Greenland Ice, resulting in an accelerating breakup of the Greenland Ice: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=conrad+steffan+greenland&aq=f&oq;=&aqi;=
And finally the GRACE satellite measurements: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grace+greenland+ice+accelerate&aq=f&oq;=&aqi;=
and here is the graph of the latest Grace research plus other measurenents showing that the Greenland Ice melting is nearly a constant 8% per year increase since 1977: http://egpreston.com/Gtpy2.jpg
and if the acceleration remains constant, which it should for a constantly increasing temperature in the arctic, then all of Greenland's ice will be gone by 2100, which means that the ocean rise will not be 3 ft by 2100, but more than 20 ft by 2100. Considering that the Earth was on a long term cooling trend until the mid 1800's, only human activity can account for the rapid change based on a review of all natural events back thousands and even millions of years ago. I would say the evidence is overwhelming that humans are increasing the temperature of the planet. 47,000 APS scientists agree humans are causing climate change whereas only 160 say the jury is still out about that. Therefore the group in this thread is a small minority. The majority now believe that the human influence is real.
Permalink
jsteinmuller Posted 12:17 pm
24 Nov 2009
Frome scientist Mick Kelly to Philip Jones (director of the Hadley CRU),
"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."
or,
from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that can't."
Oh, wait. Not really any way to take those quotes out of context. I guess that's why they didn't find their way into your article.
Permalink
Ashley Braun Posted 6:05 pm
24 Nov 2009
"But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.
"It says we don't have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing," he says.
http://www.grist.org/article/lets-look-at-one-of-the-illegally-hacked-emails-in-more-detail/
And couch that quote within the peer-reviewed article he published on the topic: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf where he openly discusses this.
Sidenote: You seem to be confused about which institution was actually hacked into. There is no "Hadley CRU;" rather, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is a separate entity than the UK's Met Office Hadley Center, which is another leading climate research center: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
Many misinformed blogs have been confusing the two.
Permalink
Glen Woodfin Posted 11:46 pm
24 Nov 2009
It's got to be more than arrogance, I smell money all over this. I'm hearing big petro, but I'm also thinking the globalists and support industries who would be collecting all the carbon taxes.
Impressive post.
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 10:00 am
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
deleted Posted 2:39 pm
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 3:56 pm
25 Nov 2009
Thus far, the overwhelming evidence, empirical science, measurements, and physics all point to relatively consistent behavior in a complex system which is driven by energy sources and cycles which are measurable. All of it tends to support a more energetic climate, including significant ice melts.
Your assertion that climate change shall be added to this category seems to stem from your limited sampling and poor scientific analysis of the data - in this case some anomalous e-mails. It appears that it is your research we should question first.
Dan
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 2:49 pm
25 Nov 2009
Permalink