Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[ke5frf]

"Correct. The Rabid Right Wingers will ensure that it doesn't, even if they have to destroy the country to prove it."

You are Canadian, no? Seems like you guys would love the extra real estate if us Yanks wind up destroying our country. You'll be enjoying the temperate weather we create for ya.

Send the Mounties!
(kidding)

 

[ke5frf]

double post

 

[kchriste]

You are Canadian, no? Seems like you guys would love the extra real estate if us Yanks wind up destroying our country. You'll be enjoying the temperate weather we create for ya.

The weather here is very mild already. Much warmer than the central north USA in the winter and nowhere near as hot in the summer. The ocean is a great temperature regulator and I'm only 200ft away from it.
I can't say the same for the more central provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Any significant reduction in annual rainfall would leave them as dust bowls in the heat of summer.
We Canadians are doing our part too you know. The Alberta tar sands are one of the largest strip mining operations in the world and emit many tons of CO2 just to extract the oil by cooking it out of the soil with steam heated by natural gas. We have a prime minister who will never do anything about that due to the political grass roots that the C party has there. Not to mention the billions of $ in royalties both levels of governments are pocketing while pointing out what good fiscal managers they are.

 

[Ross Craney]

Yes.... And you know, of course, that CO2 is more transparent to the incoming sun light than the Earth's emitted infrared energy.

So how is it all this heavier than air CO2 manages to get to the upper atmoshere ?

 

[BrownOut]

Quote by tcmtech: Of the approximately 1% of the annual gross mass of CO2 produced on the planet us humans and all our dirty little efforts only contribute around 3% of that total gross mass of atmospheric CO2.
That means we are directly and confirmed responsible for around 3% of 1% of the total green house gasses. Or .03% of the annual volume produced which about a 30 PPM equivalent of the total mass of the estimated volume of the earths atmosphere. Or about the equivalent CO2 that you release into your house in one average breath in one years time period.

Thats far below the accepted statistical noise floor in valid scientific data analysis as I understand it. Mathematically calculable but when used in actual testing its just too small of value. Its like saying your cat riding along with you in your car affects the gas mileage. Mathematically yes but in all practicality you can never prove it. 100 cats maybe but not one.

Please show your error analysis to include the calculations you used to determine that the quantities are stistically below the acceptable niose floor. The statistical significance of the amount being measures would depend entirelly on the measurement method and whatever errors produced by that method. So, what are the measurement methods? What is the measurement errors? What are the error soruces?

In this article**broken link removed**, The so-called Keeling curve was constructed from measurements at Mauna Loa using infared spectromotry. The accuracy of these instruments were about +/- 1ppm. This page describes a measure method with an accuracy of .8ppm. Further advances in gas analyzers have reduced the error even more. **broken link removed**, the ultramat 5 produced by seimans is used to measure CO2 concentrations to an accuracy of .1ppm. As the amount of CO2 is in the hundreds of ppm's, this represents accuracy that is well above the niose floor. If you have better data than this, you should show it. Where is this "actual fact data?" which can easliy be proven. If you've proven it, then show your work.

CO2 is not the greenhouse gas thats responsible for our weather and natural climatic cycles of heat dissipation and retention. Water vapor is!

Water vapor has an approximately netural effect on global warming, as it reflects sunlight energy back into the atmosphere and does not allow a significant amont of the enegy to reach the earth. Ever notice it's cooler on a cloudy day? CO2 is transparent to visible light, and opaque to the infared that gets radiated back, and so it allows energy to warm the Earth, but blocks the re-radiation that would otherwise cool the Earth. So, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, while water vapor is not.

There is a similar debate going on over at CR4 right now.
Here is the link (if I did it right). CR4 - Thread: Greenhouse Effect Sounds Like a Great Idea (Part 2)

I learned some new things and found it rather interesting and informative.
Many of these guys have engineering and science degrees and are not paid by special interest groups so their data may actually be reasonably accurate but that also makes it a longer and rather more in depth read.

This appears to be a bunch of meat-heads who don't know much about the science they are trying to discuss, much like this discusson. So, what makes them so important? They have no special credentials that qualify them in any way to speak authoritively. And the site they link for thier discussion information is nothing more than another denyer using junk science and smoke and mirror arguments. So, I guess anything on the internet is golden as long as you agree with it, which beings up the next question:

Quote by ke5frf: Brownout, why on Earth would I demand links or references from the people I agree with? I'M NOT DEBATING THEM!!! That would be like an attorney cross-examining his para-legal LOL!!!

That pretty much sums up your whole sorry argument. The question should be why wouln't you demand links or references. What you're telling us here is that you have one threshold of acceptability for data that supports one side of the argument, and an entirely different threshold for data that supports the other side. So, you accept any data or opinion that goes against the science without question or examination. That's the very thing you've accused those who argue for the science of doing. Further, since you're parroting this data, it might be good for you to do some checking, else you have no credibility (too late to worry about that however.) You started the discussion with links to hacked e-mails and you didn't even know the history of how this information came to light, or about the conspiracy theorists who hacked them and published them out of context. Next time, do some checking, and make sure informaion or misinformation you repeat is verified.

As well, you haven't any idea about the nature of the tree ring data you've pimped repeatedly. As it turns out, there are only a subset of trees which have exhibited divergent data, and only in the last few decated. Tracking the data back, the ring data from these trees correlated with other tree data as well as other measures. The decision to not include this data was based on these simple facts and not as an attempt to fool anyone. The tree ring problem is well documented and any scientist or simply curious person can find the data and discussoins of the problem.

Pretty much the rest of this thread is clogged with the same old baloney of name-calling and finger pointing. The enemies of science don't have any logical and proven arguments to make, so they disparage the dedicated scientists who's diligent work has shown the link between global warming and CO2 emmissions. What makes the scientists at NOAA different from those at NASA, DOE, DOD ( who BTW, drove much of the study of CO2 as a project with national security implications ), Departmnet of State? Claims that those scientists get paid to make up data are unsubstantiated, and really just plain stupid. Further, examination of hte NOAA website shows strong evidence of the link between CO2 and GW, and pretty much confirms everthing that's been published by the scientific community on the subject, so it's beyone weird that the deniers would try to use that orginization as their stated source.

 

[tcmtech]

Brownout. your an adult you can use Google too! We dont need to spoon feed you the information.


You can find it yourself and make any decisions you want from it as well. No one here is twisting your arm to have to believe us. We all have found what information makes sense to us and make our own decisions accordingly.

Like I said in an earlier post, If I can find it then that proves its not to hard to find.

And honestly I doubt that posting any hard facts and statistics here would do any good any way. Every global warming and climate change fanatic doesn't read or understand the chemistry, physics, and numbers any way . They just glaze over and ignore it because to them it may actually mean having to face the difficult fact that they may be wrong.

Personally I dont know if I am right or wrong thats why I keep reading and trying to understand what I read. But for me the more I read the more I see that the overall information is simply not solid proof for anything drastic happening. .0003% level changes of anything are not conclusive data numbers for me to believe. Thats basically what it comes down to.

Yes there are some things that are provably bad but when compared to the overwhelming size and numbers of everything else they are so very small of example and just dont carry the needed weight of proof that people like you seem to want people like me to believe.
I simply need far more conclusive proof that comes from sources that do not continually get caught faking information and lying about what they found.

 

[BrownOut]

Just as I thought; as one fanatical denyer demands proof, another passes his opinion off as fact and refuses to provide any evidence as demanded of those who support the science. Typical of the know-nothings. If you can't show the rudimentary details of your analysis, then your whole statement is meaningless. Yes I am an adult and I used Google to find that the instrumentation used to measure the trace gases in the atmosphere are accurate enough to measure CO2 well out of the noise floor, but thanks for your absurd suggestion anyway. This is how science is done, wether is chemistry, physics or whatever, numerical analysis is important, opining and obfuscation are not important. No matter how many times you write an opinion, it's still only an opinion, and will not pass for facts, which is the misnomer you repeatedly assign to it. I have studied chemistry and physics at the university level, so you're wrong again to suggest our side doesn't understand these disciplines of science. Your willingness to speculate and write things you have no idea about as though they are fact that can be proven is not only typical of the arguments made by your side, but also indicitive of how willing you are to substiture bull for truth.

 

[ke5frf]

This appears to be a bunch of meat-heads who don't know much about the science they are trying to discuss, much like this discusson. So, what makes them so important? They have no special credentials that qualify them in any way to speak authoritively

And exactly how are you any different? or I for that matter? Does reading the IPCC report and agreeing with the conclusions qualify you has having credentials?

Your bio seems to indicate a transition period for you. Are you currently seeking work in the climate sciences? I hear there is plenty of government money down the pike for you when the cap and trade stuff gets going. Hope it works out for you!

What you're telling us here is that you have one threshold of acceptability for data that supports one side of the argument, and an entirely different threshold for data that supports the other side.

No, it means that I've already researched the side of the argument and have drawn the same conclusion, so there is no need to question it. I haven't seen YOU demand links or data from "kchriste" on this thread, who agrees with you. So evidently the same argument applies for you. come on man, use some logic.

As well, you haven't any idea about the nature of the tree ring data you've pimped repeatedly.

Evidently you know me. have we met before? I had no idea that we had met and I had shared my entire capacity of knowledge with you for you to make this kind of assessment. I'm impressed.

Pretty much the rest of this thread is clogged with the same old baloney of name-calling and finger pointing. The enemies of science

Is "enemy of science" not an example of name-calling?

OK, you win Brownout. You can have the last word. I will no longer address your coments because evidently I'm debating with an unemployed expert climateologist and have no business questioning your position. That would be par for the course with climateologists, the requisite that their position or data not be questioned. I certainly wouldn't want to be the enemy of an unemployed climateologist.

 

[ke5frf]

I'm wondering, when was the last time you went on a tree-ring data collecting expedition and became such an expert on the methodology. Just curious. Was this when you were hanging out with Michael Mann and learning the ropes of climateology?

 

[BrownOut]

Precisely what I mean about the meathead thread. They are no different than we are, so to use them as some sort of reference is not very smart.

Your bio seems to indicate a transition period for you. Are you currently seeking work in the climate sciences? I hear there is plenty of government money down the pike for you when the cap and trade stuff gets going. Hope it works out for you!

Seems to me that you're the one trying to pass yourself off as a climate expert. I only reference the existing scientific data.

I haven't seen YOU demand links or data from "kchriste" on this thread, who agrees with you. So evidently the same argument applies for you. come on man, use some logic.

You didn't see me demand links from anyone. You're the one who demanded links, not me. Transference must be your hobby.

Is the "enemy of science" a name? Are you not refuting the scientists? Are you not trying to deny the body of scientific work in this field? Are you offended? Ok, so you're not an enemy of science. You're only someone who seeks to defame the scientists and refute their work.

I'm debating with an unemployed expert climateologist and have no business questioning your position

And what does my employment status have to do with anything? Are all unemployed people to be so degraded? Once again, I have not represented myself as an expert. I consume the news and current events just as everyone else does and draw my own conclusions from my education, knowledge and the news of the day. Too bad you have little respect for people who think for theirselves after crowing about those who don't.

Im wondering, when was the last time you went on a tree-ring data collecting expedition and became such an expert on the methodology.

When was the last time you wre on one?

 

[ke5frf]

I'm not one.

As I've said a dozen times on this thread, my interest is in supposedly ethical scientists spending their time exchanging e-mails where discussions about masking, hiding, or manipulating the data to "spoon feed" it to the unwashed masses took place.

I am different from you. I don't think that spending 4 extra years in college to get a PhD infers any special proof of integrity. I don't think that studying science as compared to say, music or history, infers a special proof of integrity.

I do not set scientists any higher on a pedestal than policemen, firefighters, or electrical engineers. Scientists are people who went to school for a career in X field, just as anyone else who went to school.

And their "work" is just as auditable as anyone's. I do not automatically trust it because "a scientist said so". So I analyze it with my own understanding and make my assessment.

Question: Do you have to be a politician to determine that a politician has misbehaved?
Do you have to be a policeman to determine that a criminal suspect was beaten by a cop in excess on a videotape of the incident?
Do you have to be a priest to determine he behaved unethically by forcing himself upon a child?

I, as a voter, taxpayer, and citizen have every right to question the work and motives behind the scientists involved here. And I will.

 

[BrownOut]

I am different from you. I don't think that spending 4 extra years in college to get a PhD infers any special proof of integrity. I don't think that studying science as compared to say, music or history, infers a special proof of integrity.

I never made any such claim. Now who thinks we've met before. Once again, you show that you value speculation over any tangible fact. Tsk, tsk, not wonder people aren't buying your supposed integrity, you demonstarte a lack of it.

I do not set scientists any higher on a pedestal than policemen, firefighters, or electrical engineers. Scientists are people who went to school for a career in X field, just as anyone else who went to school.

If I want to know about law enforcemant, I'll ask a policeman. If I want to know about fire fighting, I'll ask a fireman. If I want to know about science, I'll ask a scientist.

I trust science to scientist over conspiricy theorists, AM radio jockies, Fox News opinionists or any arbitrary ****-chat poster.

I, as a voter, taxpayer, and citizen have every right to question the work and motives behind the scientists involved here. And I will.

Rock on brother. Nobody is going to get in your way of questioning anyone's work or motives. However, we have the same rights to our opinions as you.

 

[tcmtech]

First off calm down brownout. Your likely to get a good well earned baning from this tirade your on.
Your language is well off the level that considered acceptable here.
Right now your so wound up about this your clearly missing the spell checks and rules of proper behavior and are making your self look worse and less creditable.

You didn't see me demand links from anyone.

Are you kidding me? What is this then?

Please show your error analysis to include the calculations you used to determine that the quantities are stistically below the acceptable niose floor. The statistical significance of the amount being measures would depend entirelly on the measurement method and whatever errors produced by that method. So, what are the measurement methods? What is the measurement errors? What are the error soruces? ....

.... If you have better data than this, you should show it. Where is this "actual fact data?" which can easliy be proven. If you've proven it, then show your work.

Your asking me directly where my information come from and to prove it and I have openly admitted several times on this thread that I get what I know from online sources Just as you do.
The difference is I have not posted links to every single site I have ever been to. I did post the USGS site and explained clearly that I prefer it and its international affiliates. Thats it thats where my data for better or worse comes from.
I am not a climate scientist but I do know how to find their online data easily enough and I dont get aggressively upset over someone disagreeing with me over it as you appear to be.

 

[ke5frf]

"I am not a climate scientist but I do know how to find their online data easily enough and I dont get aggressively upset over someone disagreeing with me over it as you appear to be. "

Exactly. he is behaving much like the people in the e-mail scandel.

And I am sooo glad that he doesn't represent the rest of us in the voting booth. I can't imagine being someone who never questions the word or work of others. You certainly won't get far as a manager or adminsitrator in this world without being confident in analyzing someone else's work.

 

[BrownOut]

First off calm down brownout. Your likely to get a good well earned baning from this tirade your on.
Your language is well off the level that considered acceptable here.
Right now your so wound up about this your clearly missing the spell checks and rules of proper behavior and are making your self look worse and less creditable.

Are you the moderator now? There is nothing wrong with my language and I'm posting well within acceptable standards of this site. There is no triade, just facts and nothing more. If I point that that some are engaging in speculation, then I'm stating an opinion, and I'm entitled to that as a member of good standing of this site. If the moderators think I'm breaking the rules, they are of course welcome to say so.

I honestly don't see how anyone who engages in name-calling to the extent as you do has any baises for chiding anyone for acceptable language.

I only asked for you to show your analysis, as you've claimed that several measures are not done accurately enough to be significant. I didn't ask for any links, just for you to back up your claims with tangeble analysis, as you've said many times that those on the side of GW don't know anything about chemistry, physics, numbers, etc. If you know so much more then we do, then educate us.

Who is aggressively upset, just me or anyone who thinks on thier own and states verifiable facts?

Exactly. he is behaving much like the people in the e-mail scandel.

Oh really? And what makes you such a good judge of behavior? That's what we get with posters who are out of any information to argue with, personal attacks. And I'm supposedly the one who is "breaking" the rules???

 

[ke5frf]

"If I want to know about law enforcemant, I'll ask a policeman. If I want to know about fire fighting, I'll ask a fireman. If I want to know about science, I'll ask a scientist."

Here is how I would do it. If I want to know about law enforcement, I read books about it. I read about various law enforcement agencies and their history, internal procedures, etc. I might discuss law enforcement with several officers, and get multiple points of view about it. THEN, I would discuss it with some attorneys, judges, crime reporters, and some convicted criminals to get a multifaceted viewpoint. I would feel embarassed if I relied on a single officer or agency to be by "final word" on all aspects of the subject.

But evidently, science is so above reproach that nobody but scientists are able to offer intelligent insight. It must be lonely up there so close to God.

 

[ke5frf]

LOL. I really am going to apply a high pass filter here and tune this out.
Enjoyed the discussion while it remained gentlemanly.

 

[BrownOut]

I took Physics, Chemistry and higer Mathenatics in college. I read scinetific journals and books all the time. I don't consider scientists beyond reproach, rather I am familiar with the science behind the issues and I have a good idea what I'm talking about. In contrast to your assertion that i never questions the work of other, I've questioned your work and tcmtech's work, and now both are whining about my language, which is perfectly appropriate for this discussion. Ya' just can have it both ways.

 

[tcmtech]

Administration, Nigel, and Brian1 will be along with the ban hammers shortly. We all will see who's standing tomorrow. Odds are this thread gets locked and likely deleted soon anyway.

I only asked for you to show your analysis, as you've claimed that several measures are not done accurately enough to be significant. I didn't ask for any links, just for you to back up your claims with tangeble analysis, as you've said many times that those on the side of GW don't know anything about chemistry, physics, numbers, etc. If you know so much more then we do, then educate us.

I am not an environmental scientist and have never claimed to be one. Everything I have repeated and commented on can be checked and verified online just as what you claim can be as well. Yes whatI have said may be off in some areas but until its accurately shown and proven so I will continue to follow it and repeat it openly as having been true.

Thats the overall problem with the issue of climate change and global warming. There is the real scientific groups that have piles of data that is documented and noted and scrutinized over by countless other scientists that continually comes up with undefined answers. They will not say yes or no because they cant confirm either. Their collective stand still leans towards there not being enough evidence therefore there is no real net change. These are also the people who dont continually get caught in lies and misinformation scams.

Then there is the other group of arm chair scientists and general misinformed and improperly educated public people who shout scream and demand everything ,even when they cant make heads or tails of it, yet will quickly dismiss anything that they cant understand or that does not agree with their personal opinion. Their collective stand leans towards we dont understand how it works therefore there must have been a change and someone is hiding it. These are the people who do continually get caught in thier lies and misinformation scams just ans the original post brought up!

The educated scientific group says water vapor plays the vast majority role in green house effects. The arm chair public know it all s say the .03 % by volume of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere does it.

Sorry but I will believe the educated scientists over the general public any day and I dont have any facts, figures, or correlative date to explain why I do so. I fully admit that I am not smart enough to understand all the data but I do know that hyper paranoid 'Joe Public and is buddies of questionable merit' are the last persons to believe about much of anything and we all see who's side they stand on!

 

[BrownOut]

So, you think the administrators will ban me becuase of my stance and stated opinions and allow you to call names like "Eco-nuts?" and that's going to be OK? As I said, you're wasting time and space pretending to be the site moderator and say who should be banned and who shouldn't. If my opinions and statements are so far off-base and out of bounds, then why am I getting good reputation for this thread? Evidently, you belive anyone who doesn't swallow your assertions should be banned. From what you're written, it sounds like you've already whined to the moderators about me. Wasamatter? Did I offend your fragile sensibilities?

And for reams of data, there is a large body of peer reviewed work that supports the GW theory, as opposed to mostly hacked-up and falsified data from the other side. For example, I followed the links you put up to the group of supposed straight-shooters, and they were basing their arguments on a site that was created by a GW denier, who was using the same hacked-up, misleading, fabricated data that I see used all the time by the deniers. There wasn't anything on the site that represented the peer reviewed scientific research on the subject, but those who want to live in denial used it all the same. Those are the arm-chair scientists who bloviate endlessly about science despite not having any basic understanding of the underlying priciples. They take the misinformation being diseminated on AM radio and other misinformed outlets and regurgitate it without doing the most rudimentary checking. Those are the ones who endlessly get caught in scandals. Not the dedicated scientists, who are only in scandals in the minds of their distractors.