Climategate, Global warming.. weighing things

[Steve M.]

Over the last few days I've been trying to make sense of the climate scandal that is being propagated globally. I recently watched Global Warming the Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBijSd9hipU , which is a 9-10 part series(?). It was quite interesting. Anyhow I've accumulated some facts/links and bs while trying to research this stuff and wanted to share some opinions, since real facts about it are hard to come by.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1848

Sun poised to make history with first spotless month since 1913

August 30, 2008
Watts Up With That
Many people that have an interest in the interaction between the Sun and Earth have been keeping a watchful eye on several metrics of solar activity recently. The most popular of course has been sunspot watching.

The sun has been particularly quiet in the last several months, so quiet in fact that Australia's space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the expected date for a ramping up of cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months.

On August 31st, at 23:59 UTC, just a little over 24 hours from now, we are very likely to make a bit of history. It looks like we will have gone an entire calendar month without a sunspot. According to data from NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, the last time that happened was in June of 1913. May of 1913 was also spotless.

Whats up with the sun? Since 1913(?), well that's not what these guys are saying.


http://www.solarcycle24.com/ And they have charts that prove the year sept, Nov and Dec. 97 and Feb-Sept. 98 were all spotless months.
(see Spotless Days vs Cycle 23 minimum under 'sun spots' on the 'trend charts')

So what are these guys saying?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm

Sept. 30, 2008: Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age.

What's going on in 2009? I can't seem to find any data on sunspots! (From http://www.solarcycle24.com/ click USAF/NOAA Solar Report)

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 341 Issued at 2200Z on 07 Dec 2009

IA. Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 06/2100Z
to 07/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares occurred during
the past 24 hours. The solar disk was void of sunspots.

IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very
low.

So I'm confused and looked further for sunspots.

http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotplotter.htm

Here I find that If I were born Jan. 1 2004 (set in the java window) that we're on a major sunspot decline. Under sunspots these guys http://www.solarcycle24.com/ sure are predicting a trend toward increased solar activity, but what if they're wrong?

On a side note, a thing I'm starting to understand is, is that global warming is caused by increased solar activity with co2 level increasing as a mechanical response to rising temperatures, not that temperatures increase as a result of increased co2. Now that sun spots are decreasing I think there will be a decrease in co2 (green house gases, which include H2o) since the earths overall temperature year after year has been declining for the last decade or so.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-nov-error-bar-pg.gif the image was linked from this article here: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx Article Titled "The Ice Age Cometh: Experts Warn of Global Cooling" - Where Lou Dobbs interviewed a scientist. When mention was made to a certain groups data set: .

..Assessment Project (ICECAP) questioned that data by comparing it to more modern reliable satellite data, when ask if he “quibbled” with the NOAA data’s representation.

“Yes, I do,” D’Aleo replied. “In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe – 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn’t jibe with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA set.”

In all of this, the only, well outside of SOTT's, ..the only up-to-date realistic article(s) that I could find was this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=
where the guy gave real physical data over summer 09 temps:

"June in Manhattan averaged 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.7 degrees below normal — the coldest average since 1958. The National Weather Service stated on July 1: “The last time that Central Park hit 85 in May . . . but not in June was back in 1903.”

In Phoenix, June’s high temperatures were below 100 degrees for 15 days straight, the first such June since 1913. In California’s desert, Yucca Valley’s June average was 83.5, 8.5 degrees below normal. Not far away, downtown Los Angeles averaged 74.5 degrees, five below normal.

..

At the bottom of the article (page 1) the guy has a chart.. and wouldn't you know it, there is a reference in the chart to volcanoes. From what I understand: Volcanoes pump out huge amounts of Co2, compared to humans, though nothing compared to the oceans. So what did the volcanoes do in the 80's and 90's? Caused global temperatures to drop!

Then of course this morning I woke up to this: UN: 2000-2009 likely warmest decade on record
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate

It's not too difficult to discern the reality of the situation, but it is difficult to come up with factual charts. For example smoke stacks aren't measuring exact amounts so the climate science appears to be mostly guesswork. Not that there, IMO, is an exact climate science. It's the haves just forcing new taxes on the have-nots.

Not that it means much but last year where I live it snowed in late May early June. In all, I'm not trying to make much from all of this, though I don't believe in global warming at all. It is however difficult to navigate between the BS (media blitzkrieg) and the work a few people are sticking their necks out. Apologies if this belongs in baked noodles, it's certainly baking mine trying to wade through the disinfo and things.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

I've been spending virtually every waking hour since last week investigating the Climategate scandal and the political situation surrounding it. I have come to the following conclusions regarding climate on Earth:


1. Glaciers have, on average, been in the process of retreat since 1825. (Of course there are some which are also advancing.) The rate of retreat has not changed from then until now. Bear in mind that the use of hydrocarbons didn't begin in a major way until around 1900. In other words, hydrocarbon use (i.e. CO2 emissions) has had no effect on the rate of retreat of glaciers.

2. In the U.S., and most probably the rest of the world, the average temperature has been increasing at the average rate of 0.5 degrees per century since around 1850. Once again, this was before extensive hydrocarbon use. This overall increase encompasses some decadal periods of cooling, no doubt linked to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation's cool phase (which, incidentally, we are entering right now).

3. Sea level has been rising at the unchanged rate of about 1.7 mm per year since 1850. This rate has only begun to slow in the last 10 years. Once again, this rise was before extensive hydrocarbon use. (So ignore the nonsense about dramatic sea-level rise; it's absolutely untrue. Alas many climatologists are completely ignorant of geology, which tells us that island chains and indeed continents can slowly rise and sink.)

4. Temperature correlates with solar activity, not with hydrocarbon use. This explains the rather steep warming since 1960 to about 2001. Bear in mind that there is in fact a lag of around 5 to 7 years between these two variables. Similarly, sea level correlates well with solar activity. The impact of the sun on temperature is most likely due to its effect of allowing more cosmic rays to enter Earth's atmosphere during low solar activity (and therefore low magnetic activity). Cosmic rays are theorised to give charge to aerosols present in the atmosphere, thereby turning them into stronger condensation nuclei which in turn promotes cloud formation.

5. Solar activity also correlates well with volcano activity. During period of low solar activity, volcanic activity increases. During the Little Ice Age, there was a lot more volcanic activity than there has been over the last century or so. The mechanism behind this is not well understood.

6. Carbon dioxide increases about 800 years after temperature increases. However at present the increase in CO2 is due mainly to human activity. It's interesting to note, though, that the rate of increase of CO2 has been quite linear, despite the exponential increase in CO2 emissions. I don't believe I've read anything which explains this. A lot of the CO2 is being absorbed by the ocean and of course by forests.

7. There is no robust proof that there is indeed any link between increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and increased air temperature.

8. It has been found by Linzden that the hotter earth gets, the faster it radiates heat into space. Therefore Earth has a natural cooling mechanism. It is like opening more windows the warmer a room gets so as to maintain a reasonable equilibirum. What this means is the it is very difficult, if not impossible, for Earth to heat at a catastrophically fast rate.

9. Many scientists do not expect solar activity to increase any time soon. In fact the last time the sun was as quiet as it has been over the last couple of years was just before the onset of the Dalton Minimum, another period of below-average temperatures. In conjunction with the world entering another cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the world is likely to cool significantly for at least the next 25 years.

10. There have been times in the distant past (450 million years ago) when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 11 times as high as it is now, while at the same time the Earth was in an ice age. The fact that the earth has had far greater amounts of CO2 in the air and yet no "runaway" greenhouse effect occurred, is fairly good evidence that the concept of a dreaded "tipping point" is incorrect. In other words, the Earth has already done the experiment for us, and it wasn't catastrophic.

11. The surface measurements of Earth's temperature are in many cases adjusted artificially because several stations were used to gather data from one location, or because a station was moved slightly in the past. It is becoming more and more apparent that these adjustments are usually upward, almost never downward. The reasoning behind such adjustments are not explained, including those instances where there was no obvious reason to make adjustments in the first place.


Now, onto the politics, sociology and indeed psychopathology of the scandal. It is quite disturbing, to say the least. We have "global warming" getting only 11 million hits on Google, while "Climategate" gets nearly 32 million hits. Interestingly, however, the media has given scant attention to the far-reaching implications of such a scandal, and yet gives nearly massive coverage to global warming stories. And then you have scientists (who should know better) and journalists actually defending or glossing over what amounts to blatant corruption and collusion.

As someone who greatly respects the scientific method, I have found all of this very hard to bear. It's almost like I've been living in a parallel universe in which ethics in science and accountability simply don't exist. The best thing in the world that scientists could do right now is to admit that what occurred was a disgrace, and they should completely disassociate themselves from such appalling conduct. They should also be calling for much greater transparency. By not doing this, they are tainting themselves and the entire field of science. The whole field of science will suffer; the public will only become far less respectful and more cynical towards it from now on.

But really what we are witnessing is just the exposure of what academia and science has been for a long time: corrupt. Honest young scientists become corrupted over time and ponerized until they can no longer see that what is right in front of them is just plain wrong. And those scientists that aren't ponerized might be too scared to speak up because they fear losing their jobs.

This ponerization is quite apparent in the blatant lies and denial such as, "there is not one thing in those emails which is objectionable" (I swear I have seen this belief repeated several times by "respected" journalists and scientists). Al Gore said that the most recent of the leaked emails was "10 years old" (when in fact the most recent was sent in November 2009). Not that I expected very much from Gore.

The political spin machine is going into overdrive, and it appears as if no amount of science or common sense can stop it. Any time someone asks a legitimate question about the plausibility of manmade global warming, they are often shouted down with hysterical ranting, or ridiculed with ad hominem attacks. "Denier" and "flat-earther" are two very common ad hominem attacks used by such people.

Ponerization and paramoralistic ranting has never been more apparent to me than over the last few weeks. And here I'm referring to the black-and-white thinking ("you're either an AGW believer or you're a nasty, grandchild-murdering denier"); and to the way such thinking has seemingly taken hold in many previously reasonable people.

I could continue talking about this issue for many pages, but it's late where I am so I'll leave it at that! :)

 

[Laura]

Both of these posts: questions and answers, would make a great SOTT Focus article with a minimum of editing for smooth transition. 3D, can you do it?

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Hi Laura,

Yes I will try! Though I will appreciate a more expert editor to fix whatever they think needs fixing. (I'm no expert at this.) Just give me a few days and I will add links and references, and make it more coherent.

 

[sid]

Brialliant first 2 posts. I have bookmarked the link and sent it to my private e-mail in case I have to explain or share this with someone. Waiting for the Sott article now!

Thanks!

Sid

 

[Evey]

Thank you 3DResident
I look forward to further reading.

 

[Voyageur]

Outstanding 3d, great dedicated work! :)

 

[Steve M.]

Kind of going in reverse here, but something you said got a couple of neurons firing.

The whole field of science will suffer; the public will only become far less respectful and more cynical towards it from now on.

It seems like a double no win situation. First everyone will believe.. err, well, most people. I'll categorize them as the TV believers. Then there are the scientists themselves.. man Ponerology is such a wedge making deceitful ..'thing.' So the scientists who get called names, scrutinized, denounced etc.. can't have that, it's to difficult for 'some' of them. Then, since the TV believers never seem to remember much, when the 'global warming' scandal is brought out in the open, then the 'liar scientists' and politicians will be seen as evil.. well that covers all the scientists, just much as you said.

The other thing was in part 5:

5. Solar activity also correlates well with volcano activity. During period of low solar activity, volcanic activity increases. During the Little Ice Age, there was a lot more volcanic activity than there has been over the last century or so. The mechanism behind this is not well understood.

I had never known that before. That's very interesting. Is there a place (article/link) I can get more information on that?

 

[Joe]

Hi Laura,

Yes I will try! Though I will appreciate a more expert editor to fix whatever they think needs fixing. (I'm no expert at this.) Just give me a few days and I will add links and references, and make it more coherent.

just send it to sott@sott.net when you are done.

 

[go2]

Hi Balberon and 3D,

Did you guys take a look at Zbigniew Jaworowski's "The Ice Age is Coming-Solar Cycles, Not CO2 Determine Climate" ?
I read it a couple of years ago and it might be worth a look.

Another interesting essay by A. W. Montford, alias Bishop Hill, is Caspar and the Jesus Paper . His original essay on the corruption of climate science is being published in book form as the"Hockey Stick Illusion". I hope these links help.

Edit: Hockey Stick paragraph

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Hi everyone

Sorry to say that I had a really bad storm the other night and it caused a power surge, destroying my modem! So I've had no internet access for a couple of days and I'm borrowing someone's computer just to send this message. Of course this means I'll take a little longer to get the Focus article done. :(

 

[Voyageur]

Sorry to say that I had a really bad storm the other night and it caused a power surge, destroying my modem!

:(

Hope it works out for you 3d; sorry about the 4d storm playing havoc with your computer gear. We’ve had a cold snap here, dipping down into the mid -20’s.c. One night my wife and i were in the living room when we thought we heard what sounded like a rock hitting the picture window (7x5), upon investigation we could not find a rock outside but it was revealed that the inside thermo pane window cracked in a big W –immediately thought of Laura’s frying pan for some reason; freaked us both out – it was only – 15c that particular night, so not untypical.

Take the time you need; appreciate the post and thanks for letting us know. :)

 

[Mjolnir]

4. Temperature correlates with solar activity, not with hydrocarbon use. This explains the rather steep warming since 1960 to about 2001. Bear in mind that there is in fact a lag of around 5 to 7 years between these two variables. Similarly, sea level correlates well with solar activity. The impact of the sun on temperature is most likely due to its effect of allowing more cosmic rays to enter Earth's atmosphere during low solar activity (and therefore low magnetic activity). Cosmic rays are theorised to give charge to aerosols present in the atmosphere, thereby turning them into stronger condensation nuclei which in turn promotes cloud formation.

Just to fortify that info, I found this: http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/ It's also happening in other planets.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Well it has been a most hectic week for me, and it isn't just the modem that was destroyed in the power surge, but also the ethernet ports in the computer as well. Thankfully the hard drives were unaffected. So anyway, I have to get the computer sent away and fixed. On top of this, I have been offered a new job which I didn't expect to get, which means relocating a considerable distance (try over 1000 miles). So my whole life has just been turned on its head. What this all means is that the Focus article I had begun on Climategate will take longer to finish than I initially promised. I hope everyone understands!

 

[sid]

Well it has been a most hectic week for me, and it isn't just the modem that was destroyed in the power surge, but also the ethernet ports in the computer as well. Thankfully the hard drives were unaffected. So anyway, I have to get the computer sent away and fixed. On top of this, I have been offered a new job which I didn't expect to get, which means relocating a considerable distance (try over 1000 miles). So my whole life has just been turned on its head. What this all means is that the Focus article I had begun on Climategate will take longer to finish than I initially promised. I hope everyone understands!

Could there be 4D forces at work trying to put you off from writing this until a certain date? Say, until the Copenhagen debate is done and over, policies put in place and what not!