The REAL global warming

[dcraig1]

Er, did someone mention "Peer Review"???

From "The Guardian" 02/02/2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review#

This article actually gives irrefutable examples of so-called peer-reviewed articles being rejected simply at the bias of the reviewer.

You can't dispute that Craigie, so you'd best discredit the writer, which is your usual weapon against the truth.

Painful huh?

The most painful thing around here is your gullibility. Any old thing instantly seized upon as evidence of a conspiracy without any corroborating evidence. The UEA has replied to the accusations in the Guardian regarding Phil Jones and it makes interesting reading:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement

The substance

1. FOI request by Keenan honoured in 2007.

2. A paper by Phil Jones in 2008 revisited the Chinese data after a request to a Chinese scientist to look into the original raw data was acted upon and new data supplied with more stations and better metadata. The result - hardly any difference in the anomaly with the 1990 paper.

Time and again, the denialists come up with conspiracy garbage about the temperature record. And time and again it is wholly and 100% wrong, not to mention frequently libelous.

The Guardian should issue a public apology to Phil Jones, as it clearly implied he had falsified the data.

 

[dcraig1]

And while we are on the topic of climate scientists being the victims of a very nasty slanderous campaign.

"The board of inquiry at Pennsylvania State University said it found no evidence that Michael Mann, a leading climatologist, had suppressed or falsified data, tried to destroy data or emails, or misused information."

'Hockey stick' graph creator Michael Mann cleared of academic misconduct

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann

 

[maiden22]

Yet another part of the temperature record bites the dust. Astonishingly, this is another Guardian article. You really know the ship is sinking when it comes to this. Anyway, Chinese record bogus (to add to Russian, Autralian, South American, American, Artic...).

It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre academic dispute. Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?

But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN's top climate science body.

It also further calls into question the integrity of the scientist at the centre of the scandal over hacked climate emails, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Dr Phil Jones. The emails suggest that he helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming.

The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.

Jones and his Chinese-American colleague Wei-Chyung Wang, of the University at Albany in New York, are being accused of scientific fraud by an independent British researcher over the contents of a research paper back in 1990.

That paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Nature, claimed to answer an important question in climate change science: how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?

It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas.

The pair, with four fellow researchers, concluded that the urban influence was negligible. Some of their most compelling evidence came from a study of temperature data from eastern China, a region urbanising fast even then.

The paper became a key reference source for the conclusions of succeeding reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – including a chapter in the 2007 one co-authored by Jones. It said that globally "the urbanisation influence … is, at most, an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale". In other words, it is tiny.

But many climate sceptics did not believe the claim. They were convinced that the urban effect was much bigger, even though it might not change the overall story of global warming too much. After all, two-thirds of the planet is covered by ocean, and the oceans are warming, too.

But when Jones turned down requests from them to reveal details about the location of the 84 Chinese weather stations used in the study, arguing that it would be "unduly burdensome", they concluded that he was covering up the error.

And when, in 2007, Jones finally released what location data he had, British amateur climate analyst and former City banker Doug Keenan accused Jones and Wang of fraud.

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

Keenan told the Guardian: "The worst case was a station that moved five times over a distance of 41 kilometres"; hence, for those stations, the claim made in the paper that "there were 'few if any changes' to locations is a fabrication". He demanded that Jones retract his claims about the Chinese data.

The emails, which first emerged online in November last year following a hack of the university's computer systems that is being investigated by police, reveal that Jones was hurt, angry and uncertain about the allegations. "It is all malicious … I seem to be a marked man now," he wrote in April 2007.

Another email from him said: "My problem is I don't know the best course of action … I know I'm on the right side and honest, but I seem to be telling myself this more often recently!"

An American colleague, and frequent contributor to the leaked emails, Dr Mike Mann at Pennsylvania State University, advised him: "This crowd of charlatans … look for one little thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalise that the science is entirely compromised. The last thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely."

Another colleague, Kevin Trenberth at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, urged a fightback. "The response should try to somehow label these guys and [sic] lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database."

In August 2007, Keenan submitted a formal complaint about Wang to Wang's employers. The university launched an inquiry. Reporting in May 2008, it found "no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results" and exonerated him. But it did not publish its detailed findings, and refused to give a copy to Keenan.

By then, Keenan had published his charges in Energy & Environment, a peer-reviewed journal edited by a Hull University geographer, Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

The paper was largely ignored at the time, but Guardian investigations of the hacked emails now reveal that there was concern among Jones's colleagues about Wang's missing data – and the apparent efforts by Jones and Wang over several years to cover this up.

Those concerns were most cogently expressed to Jones by his ex-boss, and former head of the CRU, Dr Tom Wigley. In August 2007, Wigley warned Jones by email: "It seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (W-C W at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect."

Wigley was concerned partly because he had been director of the CRU when the original paper was published in 1990. As he told Jones later, in 2009: "The buck should eventually stop with me."

Wigley put to Jones the allegations made by the sceptics. "Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist."

This is believed to be a report from the US department of energy, which obtained the original Chinese temperature data.

Wang's defence to the university inquiry says that he had got the Chinese temperature data from a Chinese colleague, although she is not an author on the 1990 Nature paper.

Wang's defence explains that the colleague had lost her notes on many station locations during a series of office moves. Nonetheless, "based on her recollections", she could provide information on 41 of the 49 stations.

In all, that meant that no fewer than 51 of the 84 stations had been moved during the 30-year study period, 25 had not moved, and eight she could not recollect.

Wang, however, maintained to the university that the 1990 paper's claim that "few, if any" stations had moved was true. The inquiry apparently agreed.

Wigley, in his May 2009 email to Jones, said of Wang: "I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I would …not be surprised if he screwed up here … Were you taking W-C W on trust? Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it's not too late." There is no evidence of any doubts being raised over Wang's previous work.

Jones told the Guardian he was not able to comment on the allegations. Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more. Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them."

The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.

This does not flatly contradict Jones's 1990 paper. The timeframe for the new analysis is different. But it raises serious new questions about one of the most widely referenced papers on global warming, and about the IPCC's reliance on its conclusions.

It is important to keep this in perspective, however. This dramatic revision of the estimated impact of urbanisation on temperatures in China does not change the global picture of temperature trends. There is plenty of evidence of global warming, not least from oceans far from urban influences. A review of recent studies published online in December by David Parker of the Met Office concludes that, even allowing for Jones's new data, "global near-surface temperature trends have not been greatly affected by urban warming trends."

Keenan accepts that his allegations do not on their own change the global picture. But he told the Guardian: "My interest in all this arises from concern about research integrity, rather than about global warming per se. Jones knew there were serious problems with the Chinese research, yet continued to rely upon the research in his work, including allowing it to be cited in the IPCC report."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

 

[maiden22]

And while we are on the topic of climate scientists being the victims of a very nasty slanderous campaign.

"The board of inquiry at Pennsylvania State University said it found no evidence that Michael Mann, a leading climatologist, had suppressed or falsified data, tried to destroy data or emails, or misused information."

'Hockey stick' graph creator Michael Mann cleared of academic misconduct

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientist-michael-mann

Do you seriously want to get into the hockey Stick and Mann's "exoneration" by his own university? Really?

You are a genuine fanatic, no doubt about it.

 

[dcraig1]

Yet another part of the temperature record bites the dust.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Err ...... no it doesn't. See above statement form UAE. Repeating the same old garbage over and over again will never make it true. You have no respect for the truth.

 

[dcraig1]

Do you seriously want to get into the hockey Stick and Mann's "exoneration" by his own university? Really?

Why should anybody believe Penn State University? They are in on the conspiracy too eh? History may not always repeat but it often rhymes. It's reds under the bed (and especially hiding in universities) all over again. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

 

[dcraig1]

The denialist conspiracy loons are a direct descendant of McCarthyism. The ever present theme of "Communist World Government", the appeal to ignorance, the witch hunt against individuals.

 

[maiden22]

Err ...... no it doesn't. See above statement form UAE. Repeating the same old garbage over and over again will never make it true. You have no respect for the truth.

Err......................................................................................yes it does! (wtf is this about you cretin?).

I have now shown that there are the very least considerable questions and grave legitimate concerns over the original data, as well as over how that data is compiled and "adjusted". This spans the globe, and yet you cling to the temperature record as though it has the poer to save you from evil.

And the basis for your continued faith? The people who cobbled this nonsense together issuing a statement saying that actually the record is ok.

You have no critical faculty.

 

[maiden22]

As for your drivel about McCarthyism, that does not merit a response other than to point out to you yet again what constitutes a refutation of an argument. This involves taking the points of the argument and showing them to be false, or at least unproven.

It is not sufficient to call someone a conspiracy theorist.

Since you are clearly a creature of transcendental dullness, allow me to demonstrate once more.

You are sitting on a chair.

A conspiracy theorist walks in and states that you are not sitting on a chair.

The thing that you are sitting on is still a chair.

It is very important that you grasp this concept. 'Why?' you might say. Well, it has direct relevance to this debate. I don't expect that you will understand the meaning of ad hominem, but if you are prepared to do a little work you can easily discover it.

Once you do, come back and I can continue your instruction in the difference between argument and ar$e gravy.

 

[dcraig1]

The communist, environmentalist, one world government conspiracy of international Jewish scientific bankers continues unabated .... or not:

The "other" CO2 problem -

Oceans Reveal Further Impacts of Climate Change

"The oceans are a sink for the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere," says McClintock, who has spent more than two decades researching the marine species off the coast of Antarctica. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans, and through a chemical process hydrogen ions are released to make seawater more acidic.

"Existing data points to consistently increasing oceanic acidity, and that is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere; it is incontrovertible," McClintock says. "The ramifications for many of the organisms that call the water home are profound."

"There is no existing data that I am aware of that can be used to debate the trend of increasing ocean acidification," he says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144811.htm

 

[dcraig1]

Err......................................................................................yes it does! (wtf is this about you cretin?).

I have now shown that there are the very least considerable questions and grave legitimate concerns over the original data, as well as over how that data is compiled and "adjusted". This spans the globe, and yet you cling to the temperature record as though it has the poer to save you from evil.

And the basis for your continued faith? The people who cobbled this nonsense together issuing a statement saying that actually the record is ok.

You have no critical faculty.

The record is OK. The new record compiled in 2008 with more stations with more accurate metadata than used for the Mann 1990 paper shows just the same temperature trend that the 1990 data did. What more do you want? It's crystal clear. The accusations in the Guardian are utterly without foundation. End of story except for the apology due to Phil Jones.

 

[maiden22]

The record is OK. The new record compiled in 2008 with more stations with more accurate metadata than used for the Mann 1990 paper shows just the same temperature trend that the 1990 data did. What more do you want? It's crystal clear. The accusations in the Guardian are utterly without foundation. End of story except for the apology due to Phil Jones.

We're getting somewhere at last. Now the record is "ok" - not much to go on when the "observed" warming over a century is less than 1 degree. How is the data "more accurate" and how can we be sure of this? How many more stations - the 6,000 or so that used to be used? Or slightly more, cherry-picked to produce warming?

The accusations in the Guardian are not without foundation. They argue that the Chinese record is severely compromised - and clearly it is, to anyone with the slightest scrap of intelligence or scepticism. We have seen similar examples all around the world.

The record, put very politely under the circumstances, is f****d.

As for your final comment, you have simply left the planet. An apology to Phil Jones?

 

[dcraig1]

We're getting somewhere at last. Now the record is "ok" - not much to go on when the "observed" warming over a century is less than 1 degree. How is the data "more accurate" and how can we be sure of this? How many more stations - the 6,000 or so that used to be used? Or slightly more, cherry-picked to produce warming?

The accusations in the Guardian are not without foundation. They argue that the Chinese record is severely compromised - and clearly it is, to anyone with the slightest scrap of intelligence or scepticism. We have seen similar examples all around the world.

The record, put very politely under the circumstances, is f****d.

As for your final comment, you have simply left the planet. An apology to Phil Jones?

You are just ranting. Not even the serious skeptics such as Lindzen don't dispute the instrumental temperature record. It is just the loonie conspiracy theory denialists who do. As I said, it's reds under the bed all over again.

No amount of ranting will cool the planet nor will it stop ocean acidification.

 

[maiden22]

The communist, environmentalist, one world government conspiracy of international Jewish scientific bankers continues unabated .... or not:

The "other" CO2 problem -

Oceans Reveal Further Impacts of Climate Change

"The oceans are a sink for the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere," says McClintock, who has spent more than two decades researching the marine species off the coast of Antarctica. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by oceans, and through a chemical process hydrogen ions are released to make seawater more acidic.

"Existing data points to consistently increasing oceanic acidity, and that is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere; it is incontrovertible," McClintock says. "The ramifications for many of the organisms that call the water home are profound."

"There is no existing data that I am aware of that can be used to debate the trend of increasing ocean acidification," he says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144811.htm

God, not this nonsense again.

James et al, Nature 2005 blah blah. Estimated that ph of the oceans declined from 8.179 to 8.104 between 1751 and 1994.

The article you quote is full of the usual maybe, possibly, bytheendofthecentury claptrap.

Anyway, is there not a dilemma here? You claim that the vast majority of warming is caused by man-made CO2. Warmer world, warmer oceans.

Warmer oceans give off more co2, colder ones absorb more. If CO2 is the primary driver of warming as you bullsh1t artists contend, and if co2 stays in the atmosphere for (insert ludicrous figure here) as you also contend, the cooling that you want to bring about is really gonna get those crabs dissolving.

Or possibly this is just yet more alarmism based on tiny changes.

And another possibility is that the more prescient scammers can see the wheels coming off the warming con. But don't worry! There is still acidification, so do what we say anyway.

Pathetic.

 

[maiden22]

You are just ranting. Not even the serious skeptics such as Lindzen don't dispute the temperature record. It is just the loonie conspiracy theory denialists who do. As I said, it's reds under the bed all over again.

No amount of ranting will cool the planet nor will it stop ocean acidification.

That is not ranting - you must be a very sensitive soul. What I have done is point out very strange features of the record that (doubtless coincidentally) seem to have produced a warming bias.

Perhaps the world has warmed - I have no idea, and the statement is in any case meaningless without a timescale. It is not loony to wonder why stations have moved, have disappeared, are placed on top of water treatment plants etc. It is loony to accept that we need to wreck the global economy based on less than 0.7c warming over a century when the temperature record is so wonky.

 

[dcraig1]

God, not this nonsense again.

James et al, Nature 2005 blah blah. Estimated that ph of the oceans declined from 8.179 to 8.104 between 1751 and 1994.

The article you quote is full of the usual maybe, possibly, bytheendofthecentury claptrap.

Anyway, is there not a dilemma here? You claim that the vast majority of warming is caused by man-made CO2. Warmer world, warmer oceans.

Warmer oceans give off more co2, colder ones absorb more. If CO2 is the primary driver of warming as you bullsh1t artists contend, and if co2 stays in the atmosphere for (insert ludicrous figure here) as you also contend, the cooling that you want to bring about is really gonna get those crabs dissolving.

Or possibly this is just yet more alarmism based on tiny changes.

And another possibility is that the more prescient scammers can see the wheels coming off the warming con. But don't worry! There is still acidification, so do what we say anyway.

Pathetic.

Can you write a single post without words such as "scammers", " bullsh1t artists", "alarmism". These are serious scientists doing serious research. You, like Ingot, are paranoid and ranting.

 

[maiden22]

Can you write a single post without words such as "scammers", " bullsh1t artists", "alarmism". These are serious scientists doing serious research. You, like Ingot, are paranoid and ranting.

I have written a great many, sadly not warranted by the quality of your responses. There are serious scientists doing serious research. There are poor scientists doing research that is little more than a joke. And there are those that are manipulating that research for their own ends.

I might well ask you a similar question: can you write a single post without words such as "conspiracy"? You see conspiracy theorists everywhere. Perhaps you're paranoid?

Once again, calling me a conspiracy theorist blah blah blah is not an argument. However, your principal method seems to consist largely of childish name-calling.

Very well - I will give you one final warning. Produce arguments, or kindly get off the pot. From now on, I will respond in kind. Go no further down your present path, for to do so is to invite destruction.

 

[maiden22]

This will only be of interest if you are not an

If you're not, good article on the AGW scandal, as well as tracing its roots a little further back than usual ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ipcc_international_pack_of_cli.html ). Don't worry if you find it plausible - recognising other people's dubious motives does not make you a conspiracy theorist. It might however mean that you don't need some of this:

 

[maiden22]

Let me break it down for you Craig. You want to step back from the can. You don't want to open it up. See, once the can is open, the whup-ass come out. ALL the whup-ass.

You can't decide when you've had enough whup-ass - the can dictates how much you get. And that how much is ALL of it. And that ALL is A LOT. A real LOT.

I don't want to have to lay the whole can of whup-ass on your ass. But I will if you don't pay atention what the can is trying to tell you.

Remember - there is a whole cah of righteous whup-ass here with your name on it, just waiting for you to hand me the "denier" can-opener. Or you can use your "conspiracy theorist" can-opener, it don't matter. Leave the can-opener in your drawer son. Period paragraph.

 

[dcraig1]

This one has got to be a classic in ignorance and arrogance.

God, not this nonsense again.

James et al, Nature 2005 blah blah. Estimated that ph of the oceans declined from 8.179 to 8.104 between 1751 and 1994.

Indeed and lower ph means higher acidity. High ph value means more alkaline or basic. The most fundamental chemistry there is.

The article you quote is full of the usual maybe, possibly, bytheendofthecentury claptrap.

Anyway, is there not a dilemma here? You claim that the vast majority of warming is caused by man-made CO2. Warmer world, warmer oceans.

Warmer oceans give off more co2, colder ones absorb more. If CO2 is the primary driver of warming as you bullsh1t artists contend, and if co2 stays in the atmosphere for (insert ludicrous figure here) as you also contend, the cooling that you want to bring about is really gonna get those crabs dissolving.

Higher ocean temperature, reduced capacity as a carbon sink, and increased ocean acidity are by no means incompatible. Higher temperature means higher concentration of H+ and hence higher acidity. If you think that researchers are not aware of this simple stuff (which you obviously are not), you are delusional.

Or possibly this is just yet more alarmism based on tiny changes.

And another possibility is that the more prescient scammers can see the wheels coming off the warming con. But don't worry! There is still acidification, so do what we say anyway.

Pathetic.

You should be embarrassed by your post.