 | Hackers global warming emails | | 
December 7th, 2009, 02:44 PM
|
#301 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,102
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Black*Dragon  The whole reason this thread exists is because someone doctored the temps.
We have been in COOLING for the last decade. Do not tell me about Limbaugh as my source. My science does not come from layman. | Ok, where is your data then? All of the data there is points this way. Not just the stuff from the CRU, but also from NASA and NOAA; whom aren't involved in said "climategate". I linked an article to the recent NASA data a few posts earlier.
__________________
Me: Glenn Beck Might be Going Blind
Wife: Well Then he Should Stop Playing with Himself
| 
|  | |
December 7th, 2009, 03:00 PM
|
#302 (permalink)
| | MR Meek and Mild
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: almost Virginia
Posts: 5,831
| Quote:
Originally Posted by thephilosophizer The point is correlation. Cause and effect is exceptionally hard to learn from ice cores. What we know is that when CO2 goes up, temps go up.
What we know right now is that the average americans emits 20 tons of CO2/year, the highest per capita emissions of any nation. We also know that as per capita emissions have gone up over the last century, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone.
We know CO2 concentrations are exceptionally high now, and we know that per capita glboal emissions are also at their highest (the peak actually seems to have been sometime last year just prior to the oil spike, but we are still pretty close).
And we also know that global temperatures have been slowly going up over that same time (refer to warmest decade ever link above).
Whatever data the CRU manipulated, the things I have mentioned above have all been confirmed independently. This is what is. |
actually what we see with ice core data is Temperature rising and then co2 rising in other words co2 follows temperature then we see high co2 while temperature falls and then co2 falling. The temperature is seems to lead the co2
| |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 03:15 PM
|
#303 (permalink)
| | MR Meek and Mild
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: almost Virginia
Posts: 5,831
| Quote:
Originally Posted by thephilosophizer Ok, where is your data then? All of the data there is points this way. Not just the stuff from the CRU, but also from NASA and NOAA; whom aren't involved in said "climategate". I linked an article to the recent NASA data a few posts earlier. |
NOAA has a little problem with it's sensor locations not meeting it's own guidelines. they then removed sensor locations from their database to keep people from checking up on them. (i don't know the current status of this)
If all the errors seem to fall in favor of your conclusion are the really errors?
hey dont kill the messenger but I like this | |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 03:35 PM
|
#304 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Occoquan Virginia
Posts: 1,319
|
Freedom of information act requests are being ignored or evaded by another organization that by law must honor those requests. Looks like someone else may have cooked the books with their data. As I have said several times, this set of false science in these e-mails were just a start.
The Agency playing games with data requests?..............NASA
__________________
Obama Lies
Grandma Dies
| |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 03:53 PM
|
#305 (permalink)
| | MR Meek and Mild
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: almost Virginia
Posts: 5,831
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Black*Dragon Freedom of information act requests are being ignored or evaded by another organization that by law must honor those requests. Looks like someone else may have cooked the books with their data. As I have said several times, this set of false science in these e-mails were just a start.
The Agency playing games with data requests?..............NASA | linky linky | |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 03:54 PM
|
#306 (permalink)
| | Fact Checker
Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: MSU- E. Lansing, MI
Posts: 7,344
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Epidemic actually what we see with ice core data is Temperature rising and then co2 rising in other words co2 follows temperature then we see high co2 while temperature falls and then co2 falling. The temperature is seems to lead the co2 | Over and over again ep the armchair scientist with his 80% efficient gasoline engine, alcohol resistant bacteria, epidistics etc. keeps bringing this up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomer Ep: First, I will look at your info in great detail when I have more time. But I must state right off the bat... I have provided a very thorough article published in Technology Review by MIT. A source which has been praised as very sound with exacting scientific standards by none other than cyphen!
You, on the other hand, present a jumble of various images, graphs, and snippets from a variety of miscellaneous/personal webpages. Some of which are graphs so poorly done, they would be failed in a 7th grade science class (e.g. no labels on the axis). You never post any sort published/peer review document that explains the data or how it was collected. You either just let it spin with whatever website is hosting it, or you put your own unique brand of spin on it. It really makes having any sort of productive, rational discourse with you very difficult.
Second... since you are practically drooling about Mars in every other post, and the historical warming trend that is going on on that planet... please tell me how far that historical data goes back. When was it we started measuring, with accuracy, the temperature on Mars? Do you have an article from a reputable source that discusses the implications of the temperature increases on Mars in what I am guessing is at most the last 25 years? Did you know that the decrease in pirates also coincides with the increase in global warming?
You have missed the whole point of the MIT article. Yes, we are at a warm point in the natural cycle. But for the first time in the 400,000 years we have observed this cycle, levels of CO2 have increased before the temperature increased. You have pointed this out yourself (indrectly, repeatedly)! In the past, CO2 levels had lagged behind temperature increases. We have drastically altered this. Did you read the article? |
Anyway, if anyone has yet to read the article he speaks of (and which I notice is missing from the link he shared), it can be found here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/prin....aspx?id=17057
Quote: Jim Hansen may be the most respected climate scientist in the world. He's been director of NASA's premier climate research center, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for 25 years and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for 10. And he more or less single-handedly turned global warming into an international issue one sweltering June day in 1988, when he told a group of reporters in a hearing room, just after testifying to a Senate committee, "It's time to stop waffling so much and say that the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now."
snip
Hansen is a planetary scientist. He earned his doctorate from the University of Iowa's department of physics and astronomy, when it was chaired by the legendary astrophysicist James Van Allen. For his dissertation, Hansen investigated the effect of atmospheric dust on the temperature of Venus; and it may be that this early work imparted a special knack for viewing Earth's climate system as a whole. He joined GISS as a staff scientist in 1972 and was promoted to director in 1981. For more than 30 years, he and his dedicated research team have been producing work at the forefront of climate science.
snip
Past atmospheric temperatures at Vostok may be inferred by measuring the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen, layer by layer, in the water molecules of the ice. Ancient carbon dioxide levels are recorded in the air bubbles trapped in the ice. These records show that temperature and carbon dioxide tracked each other for all but the last 200 years -- both oscillating in a cycle that repeats about every 100,000 years, in step with minute changes in the shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun. Dips in carbon dioxide and temperature correspond to ice ages, or "glacials," and peaks to interglacials -- such as the present warm period, which began about 12,000 years ago.
In the early 1800s, shortly after the start of the industrial era, carbon dioxide began to skyrocket, while temperature remained flat. Temperature began to spike only about 30 years ago. In contrast, temperature changes preceded carbon dioxide changes at Vostok until the beginning of the industrial era. Scientists believe these natural changes in carbon dioxide were a feedback response to initial, small changes in temperature, and that those changes -- along with other responses -- amplified the original temperature shifts.
The other responses included changes in the levels of other greenhouse gases, primarily methane; changes in the area covered by polar ice sheets and sea ice, which reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet; changes in the levels of dust and airborne aerosols, which also cool by reflecting sunlight (the "parasol effect"); and changes in the mix of grassland, desert, and forest, which affect the reflectivity of the land.
The history of these factors is known. Besides the information about greenhouse-gas levels from the trapped air bubbles at Vostok, a sediment core from the bottom of the Red Sea indicates changes in sea level, which in turn give an approximation of ice sheet area. (The ice sheets grew and thereby drained the oceans during cold times; they melted to refill them during warm times.)
Using these and other geological records, Hansen can calculate Earth's temperature at any given time in the past 420,000 years. He plugs in the data for greenhouse levels, sea level, and so on to produce a temperature estimate for the corresponding time. And as he showed his audience last December, these calculations match temperatures as recorded by the deuterium and hydrogen in Vostok's ice quite precisely over the entire 420,000-year span.
Global-warming deniers like to complain that scientists base their predictions on faulty computer models. But Hansen's calculations show that we don't need a computer to know how temperature will respond to a given change in the greenhouse -- or a change in dustiness, or forest cover, or the amount of ice on the Arctic Ocean. Solid geological field data give us everything we need -- and provide a check for computer models. And lend credibility to Hansen's predictions.
Besides demonstrating his firm grasp of the power of these various factors to change temperatures, this remarkable matching of theory to real-world data also tells us just how ornery the climate beast may be: the orbital changes that paced the ice ages were incredibly small. They had little effect on the total amount of sunlight reaching Earth in a single year -- only its distribution over seasons and latitudes. Nevertheless, these minute redistributions led to swings in temperature of about 5 ºC and variations in sea level of more than 100 meters.
Greenhouse-gas levels, on the other hand, are more like a knob controlling the brightness of the sun. And the turning up of the rheostat that humanity has accomplished by adding about a trillion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere thus far in the industrial era dwarfs the redistributions in sunlight that once switched the planet back and forth between glacials and interglacials. We are poking the climate beast in a way it has not been poked in the entire era of cyclical ice ages -- at least two million years. As Hansen told his audience last December, "Humans now control global climate, for better or worse."
|
and:
Quote:
When I give talks about climate change, the question that comes up most frequently is this: “Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?”
On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is no surprise that it comes up because it is one of the most popular claims made by the global warming deniers. It got a particularly high profile airing a couple of weeks ago, when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore’s congressional testimony. Barton said: In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals something entirely different. I have an article from Science magazine which I will put into the record at the appropriate time that explains that historically, a rise in CO2 concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you’re not just off a little. You’re totally wrong.
Of course, those who’ve been paying attention will recognize that Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed in numerous places. Indeed, guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus addressed this in one of our very first RealClimate posts, way back in 2004. Still, the question does keep coming up, and Jeff recently received a letter asking about this. His exchange with the letter writer is reproduced in full at the end of this post. Below is my own take on the subject.
First of all, saying “historically” is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.
Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don’t really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Still, the best published calculations do show values similar to those quoted by Barton (presumably, taken from this paper by Monnin et al. (2001), or this one by Caillon et al. (2003)). But the calculations can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I’m aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.
Now, it there is a minor criticism one might level at Gore for his treatment of this subject in the film (as we previously pointed out in our review). As it turns out though, correcting this would actually further strengthen Gore’s case, rather than weakening it. Here’s why:
The record of temperature shown in the ice core is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. The rest of the globe does indeed parallel the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller. While we don’t know precisely why the CO2 changes occur on long timescales, (the mechanisms are well understood; the details are not), we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2. But CO2 does not explain all of the change, and the relationship between temperature and CO2 is therefore by no means linear. That is, a given amount of CO2 increase as measured in the ice cores need not necessarily correspond with a certain amount of temperature increase. Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer’s eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn’t actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot. But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here).
Global average temperature is lower during glacial periods for two primary reasons:
1) there was only about 190 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and other major greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) were also lower
2) the earth surface was more reflective, due to the presence of lots of ice and snow on land, and lots more sea ice than today (that is, the albedo was higher).
As very nicely discussed by Jim Hansen in his recent Scientific American article, the second of these two influences is the larger, accounting for about 2/3 of the total radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases account for the other 1/3. Again, this was all pretty well known in 1990, at the time of the Lorius et al. paper cited above.
What Gore should have done is extrapolated the temperature curve according this the appropriate scaling — with CO2 accounting for about 1/3 of the total change — instead of letting the audience do it by eye. Had he done so, he would have drawn a line that went up only 1/3 of the distance implied by the simple correlation with CO2 shown by the ice core record. This would have left the impression that equilibrium warming of Antarctica due to doubled CO2 concentrations should be about 3 °C, in very good agreement with what is predicted by the state-of-the-art climate models. (It is to be noted that the same models predict a significant delay until equilibrium is reached, due to the large heat capacity of the Southern ocean. This is in very good agreement with the data, which show very modest warming over Antarctica in the last 100 years). Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2-3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius’s calculations more than 100 years ago).
In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.
A final point. In Barton’s criticism of Gore he also points out that CO2 has sometimes been much higher than it is at present. That is true. CO2 may have reached levels of 1000 parts per million (ppm) — perhaps much higher — at times in the distant geological past (e.g. the Eocene, about 55 million years ago). What Barton doesn’t bother to mention is that the earth was much much warmer at such times. In any case, more relevant is that CO2 has not gone above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years (at least), until the most recent increase, which is unequivocally due to human activities.
Below is the letter written to Jeff Severinghaus, and his response:
Dear Jeff,
I read your article “What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?” You mention that CO2 does not initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods when cooling begins after a warming cycle…even one of 5,000 years?
If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2 levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather impotent as an amplifier either way…warming or cooling. We are talking about planet Earth after all and not Venus whose atmospheric pressure is many times larger than Earth’s.
If there is also a time lag upon the onset of cooling, then it appears that some other mechanism actually drives the temperature changes. So what is the time difference between CO2 levels during the onset of a cooling period at the end of a warming period and the time history of the temperature changes in the ice cores?
Dear John,
The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.
But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.
Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.
Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.
Think of heart disease – one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient’s condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?
There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.
The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.
So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.
The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.
The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.
The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2’s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.
Hope this is illuminating.
Jeff |
| |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 04:14 PM
|
#307 (permalink)
| | MR Meek and Mild
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: almost Virginia
Posts: 5,831
|
Gomer that feed back loop is wonderful but it does not explain the second part of my armchair analysis. The letter to jeff is wonderful and does seem to address the issue but during the cool down the temperatures are still at levels that previously caused the feedback loop in jeffs argument. as such the co2 should not have fallen because the oceans could not dissolve the co2 required at those temperatures.
We also know that Jeff is utilizing data from the current AGW crowd and there is some questions as to it's validity in that some key scientists are utilizing some shady techniques to cover up inconsistant data.
Last edited by Epidemic : December 7th, 2009 at 04:17 PM.
| |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 04:16 PM
|
#308 (permalink)
| | MR Meek and Mild
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: almost Virginia
Posts: 5,831
| | |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 04:34 PM
|
#309 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Occoquan Virginia
Posts: 1,319
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Epidemic linky linky | A link for you? Sure no problem. 
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times
Big Government » Blog Archive » Climategate Spreading to NASA?
Quote: |
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
|
| |
| | |
December 7th, 2009, 09:13 PM
|
#310 (permalink)
| | to F@H or not to F@H ?
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: MN
Posts: 4,586
| Quote:
Originally Posted by thephilosophizer If you are going to make claims about what someone said, you should probably read them first, instead of letting the likes of limbaugh and beck digest it for you.
WMO info note 44: "Temmporary La Niña’s cooling effect does not stall global warming"
The UN WMO specifically states that the La Nina effect caused a temporary cooling event, but that event included, the decade long trend still shows warming. |
Has Limbaugh said something about this? And who is Glen beck is that Jeff beck’s brother? 
Of course nobody could possibly see this for themselves it must be rush or beck telling them this, 
Wrong answer,
See I have the emails and I am reading them and the papers,
I don’t need someone to tell me how to think, I do that on my own,
But hey if rush is talking about this he may have something to say, I’ll have to tune in see what the man says, he sure is good at pissing the libs off. But I really don’t spend much time listening to him, 
__________________
i'm folding for techimo!! what are you doing? | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | |
hardware
prices 
