Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[tcmtech]

Well if only one or two locations are needed to show a trend then consider how accurate of temperature readings we would have if only two independent places set up world wide where used as the reference points for the whole global climate. Say using Antarctica for one since its far removed from human in influences and perhaps the Sahara desert for the other being that too is unaffected by human influences as well.
If those two points where used for the whole world temperature reference then we should be able to assume that -20 F should be a normal typical night time temperatures and +120 F should be a normal day time temperature.

Sorry but if you want to show a trend in something on a planetary scale a few sensors is not even close to being scientifically valid. Its like saying a hand full of transistors is the same as a quad four 3.6 GHz processor and that the other billion or so transistors its uses are just unnecessary.

Right now the world wide weather and meteorological prediction and data gathering networks have tens of thousands of sensor systems in place and working all together in real time and most times they can only tell you that tomorrow may have a 80% chance of being the same or different as it was today. And next weeks forecast is guaranteed to be even less accurate than that!

If you told them to predict what the weather is going to be like for the next 100 years using only a few dozen sensors spread out world wide they would look at you like your retarded!

But then again the climatologists dont use the full compliment of meteorological data and information for their sources since it still always has that problem of having those annoying little * some place that says the whole estimate has a +- percentage of error in it. And that '*' is often listed as being 10 to 100 times greater than what it is they are going on about.
Saying something changed by +.3 with an error factor of +- 3 to 30 rather invalidates the whole thing.

 

[kchriste]

Sorry but if you want to show a trend in something on a planetary scale a few sensors is not even close to being scientifically valid.

If you want to convince me that the majority of scientific community are a bunch of lying, corrupt, buffoons, you are going to have to find more than a few vocal Bill O'Rielly right wingers!

 

[Sceadwian]

kchriste, the point is the majority of the so called scientific community actually have NOTHING to do with science.. You can claim whatever you want, till it's proved on paper with pure data and no opinion you're preaching to the choir so to speak. No one cares what the vocal minority are saying.

Science stands on the numbers purely, correlations are REQUIRED, and opinion means nothing.

Let the numbers and correlations speak for themselves, you can't just keep stacking preposition ontop of preoposition and have the science be valid. It's a house of cards. Hard science is 'hard' for a reason it's not easy, and for something as complicated as our global envioronment it's not even possible within the human lifetime, to say anything else is ignorance of the science that is actually occuring, which at this stage of the game is nothing more than gathering of data.

 

[tcmtech]

Sorry But I dont get the reference, who is Bill O'rielly?

As I recall its the climatologists who keep getting caught and questioned about why they dont follow correct scientific procedure and documentation methods and seem to be on the leading edge of falsifying data and information, Plus they seem to feel that the less sensors and wide spread data collection systems they use the better their evidence supports itself!

Personally I have no problem with the established scientific community. They still show all of their work, attempt to account for their errors and deviations in data and ask for reviews of it by neutral third party groups and comities! Plus they seem to feel the need to factor in everything to the whole equation as well!

 

[kchriste]

Science stands on the numbers purely, correlations are REQUIRED, and opinion means nothing.

Ok, here is some data for you:

From Alert bay Canada:
**broken link removed**
NewZealand:
**broken link removed**
Bering Island Russia:
**broken link removed**
Algeria:
**broken link removed**
Auzie Land:
**broken link removed**
Germany (Some gaps in the data, but notice the upward trend)
**broken link removed**

I could go one posting these, but look at the data at the site and see for yourselves:
**broken link removed**

 

[kchriste]

Sorry But I dont get the reference, who is Bill O'rielly?

There should be a there instead if you haven't heard of him.

 

[tcmtech]

YES THERE IS AN ESTIMATED 100 PPM RISE OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE THAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE LAST 100 YEARS OR SO.
As far as I and most others know now no one is claiming that the CO2 level has not gone up. We all agree with that part. Its the rest of the equation that we have a problem with. What that 100 PPM in the last century may or may not effect is what we are skeptical about.

So far I have been told that water vapor has no effect on green house effects.
Solid established science seems quite sure that its responsible for 70% to 90% or more of it!
Solid established science seems quite sure its also responsible for that much of the positive effects in green house effects reduction as well.
Solid established science says its considered the #1 fastest of all the greenhouse feedback loops in reaction times and capacity.

So far I have been told that CO2 forcing increases its green house effects by 1000 times.

You haven't calculated the forcing due to CO2 and compared it to forcing of the other gases. If you did, you would have a very different result. For example, the 17% rise in CO2 represents a rise in the forcing that is approximately 1000 times the magnitude of the difference due to Nitrogen Oxide over the same period. Thus the effects of rising CO2 swamp whatever went on with the other greenhouse gases.

Everything I have read that has been scientifically tested and confirmed on creditable scientific web sites seems to say that the CO2 forcing effect is likely debunked now or at least plays a significantly smaller role over all than was being claimed. This more scientific link, Forcing , gives a fairly scientific and technical but reasonable explanation of what is happening and to what energy and radiation levels in regards to CO2 forcing effects.
It is now believed to be responsible for about 1.9 watts per square meter of the normally occurring 1400 watts per square meter we receive every day. Even when simulated in laboratory environments and on computer simulations CO2 forcing can not break an additional 1.9 watt per meter gain level with the concentrations levels at double what they are now!

Another less talked about issue is that in the natural terms of the green house effect all energy that comes into the earths atmosphere also goes back out at some point fairly quickly afterwords.
That produces that pesky little problem that the green house effect its a bidirectional effect. That is what ever it lets in it also lets out when the sun is not present, night time. Thermal mass and insulating effects go both ways. More energy is absorbed but then when its given a chance it also radiates outward that much faster. The hotter the resistor the more it will radiate its heat energy away.
If it didn't this planet would have cooked long before life ever evolved.

I have been in a green house many times before and during the day they do in fact warm up very well from sunlight. However if you have ever been in one after dark you will feel that it looses heat very fast as well! That also rather explains why they have such massive heaters in them! All of that solar energy that wasn't directly absorbed into a solid physical mass (the floor, plants, tables, and framework) goes right back out after dark!

A 100 PPM rise sounds like a vary significant level change but unfortunately there are also 999620 other PPM in that equation doing something else! Until they are all accounted for the additional 100 PPM just doesn't carry any significant weight. But thats just my theory and opinion.

 

[kchriste]

Solid established science seems quite sure its also responsible for that much of the positive effects in green house effects reduction as well.

Ok then, can you tell me what the ratio of good green house effect to bad green house effect, that water vapor has?

Everything I have read that has been scientifically tested and confirmed on creditable scientific web sites seems to say that the CO2 forcing effect is likely debunked now or at least plays a significantly smaller role over all than was being claimed.

Could you provide a link to this "credible" source?

This more scientific link, Forcing , gives a fairly scientific and technical but reasonable explanation of what is happening and to what energy and radiation levels in regards to CO2 forcing effects.

WOW! A link to an article by Deitze who is an electrical engineer!

Deitze was a signatory to the 1995 "Leipzig Declaration", a project of Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project and a group called the European Academy of Environmental Affairs. The Declaration stated that: "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide."
When a Danish journalist attempted to contact the 33 European scientists listed on the petition, 12 denied signing the petition and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Of those that did admit signing the letter, one was a doctor and another was an expert in flying insects. The Declaration was then revised and Dietze's name, among others, was removed.

But thats just my theory and opinion.

I can agree with you 100% here!

 

[tcmtech]

Ok then, can you tell me what the ratio of good green house effect to bad green house effect, that water vapor has?

As I am understanding it is typical average is 1:1. But it has the over all ability to swing either way as needed and to very extreme levels either way. It can absorb and hold heat energy which is both beneficial and when taken to far detrimental. It can create cloud cover which can greatly reduce incoming solar energy by reflecting it back away from the surface cutting the net input energy levels to less than half of what is typical. But when sustained for too long that blocking effect can also greatly reduce the needed solar energy and heating effects to the point of being detrimental to plant life and can also cause too much surface cooling to occur which is also harmful to the Eco system.

Thats the real issues in all of this green house effect business no one thing is all bad or all good. They all play a role in the overall effect. One increasing in its positive or negative effects can also be easily offset by another that has the capacity to counter that effect and cancel it out.
Its like saying water is bad because you can drowned in it. But then saying its good because you will die without it. Nothing in nature is all one way or another. Nothing is all good and no bad or all bad and no good. There is a huge range between the capable extremes of all things. Not all human activities are bad and not all are good.

I have no reasons to dwell on every minute and possibly negative thing or effect that occurs with every thing that ever happens. That in itself is bad. The world we live in is highly dynamic and constantly changing. It all natural and analog based which is why trying to quantify anything as a 1 or a 0 (only good or bad) is impossible and very wrong in itself.
CO2 is a part of nature and has both good and bad effects. Just the same as us humans and all living creatures. We each have positive and negative effects on everything around us. The net effect we exert is basically neutral. Some fight and some make peace but we all live and go on to do something else.

WOW! A link to an article by Deitze who is an electrical engineer!

So how come you can find everyones work history and affiliations yet you dont seem to give any other information in regards to global warming other than the same CO2 PPM rise graphs over and over? Is that it? That graph is the whole entire basis of the great climate debate?

Could you provide a link to this "credible" source?

Here is a Harvard University paper, just to ponder on, from a study that gives some real error references in its tables at the end. **broken link removed**

Here is a general news related one as well.
**broken link removed**

Here is an analysis of the little ice age and some other relative global greenhouse effects that went with it.
**broken link removed**

If you use a general search for "CO2 Forcing Studies" you will get loads of reports, and other related stuff that also is drawing out questions about the climate changes and how they occurred in the past and how the information and data are being used and interpreted now. Who is creditable and who is not is up to everyone else to decide. I am no expert on who's who and never claimed to be.

For me right now I am growing tired of having to read pages and pages of reports to see who may be more creditable than others and then having link everything to everything else. If anyone takes the actual time to read and understand what I have linked to you should find that these references are fairly neutral on the whole issue. They make points for and against both sides of the argument, some more than others though, and generally weigh their results that they each came to afterward.

Anyone else who wants to argue or reference either side of the debate is more than welcome to do so.
The internet works for anyone who is willing to put forth the basic effort to try and do a general search. Go nuts.

For me I have found far more reasons to not worry about CO2 than I ever had before.
If someone wants to worry even more about CO2 they can go and find their reasons to do so. It doesn't affect my mood for the better or worse in any way, shape, or form!

 

[kchriste]

As I am understanding it is typical average is 1:1. But it has the over all ability to swing either way as needed and to very extreme levels either way.

How convenient for you.

The net effect we exert is basically neutral.

As bare naked humans: yes. Automobiles and industry? No.

So how come you can find everyones work history and affiliations

I always check the integrity of the author before reading. Otherwise, I am wasting my time.

yet you dont seem to give any other information in regards to global warming other than the same CO2 PPM rise graphs over and over?

This is the first time I posted some graphs. Before you were complaining that I wasn't backing up my position with facts and links. Sceadwian asked to see more data on the amount of measured CO2 in the atmosphere so we could correlate the data and I obliged him.

Here is a Harvard University paper, just to ponder on, from a study that gives some real error references in its tables at the end. **broken link removed**

Good and interesting article. Thank you.

For me right now I am growing tired of having to read pages and pages of reports to see who may be more creditable than others and then having link everything to everything else.

That is why I initially avoided it. It's a lot of work and with the internet it is very hard to verify the source of the information.

 

[BrownOut]

The problem with the linked reports that propose to show the temperature is dropping is the same authors have to ignore that something like 8 or 9 of the hottest years on record occurred after 1998 ( whatever number I wrote in response to the other thread; I can't go back and look at what it is as I write in this window.) Also, they have a real problem coordinating the solar warming cycles with the actual temperatures which have been measured.

To claim forcing doesn't occur is plain wrong, and not confirmed by climate science. The forcing due to CO2 is probably close to 5 - 10 degrees C, using the already established factor that CO2 is responsible for 15 - 30% of forcing, and that total forcing is responsible for about 33 degrees C. Without this forcing, the world would be a very different place from what we know. Reviewed scientific measurements and analysis have show that CO2 is in fact a very important greenhouse gas and responsible for forcing in a very critical part of the infrared spectrum, which is not much affected by water vapor. So in fact, CO2 forcing is important and critical to the health of the eco system.

So far I have been told that CO2 forcing increases its green house effects by 1000 times.

Oh really? Even the quote that went along with this statement didn't support it. I know how complicated this is for some people, but really, a pretty smart 5th grader could see the flaw in this.

EDIT: After re-reading my post and doing a little more research, I realized my use of "forcing" in the above analysis is not totally correct. I should have use the greenhouse effect of CO2 as a warming agent to calculate the overall temperature due to the presence of the gas, rather than forcing, remembering that forcing refers to the rise in radiative effect due to the rise in the amount of the gas. Forcing has been shown to be responsible for the recent rise in global temperatures, but is a different analysis than the overall greenhouse effect.

 

[BrownOut]

Maybe there is only a CO2 problem in the northern part of the planet, or maybe the more industrial areas are to the north, so they read higher CO2. The southern half be less developed, jungle and rain forest is probably a lot cleaner...

If that were true, it would support what we've been saying all along, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to man made emmissions. The northern parts would indeed exhibit higher concentrations of the gas.

 

[HarveyH42]

If that were true, it would support what we've been saying all along, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to man made emmissions. The northern parts would indeed exhibit higher concentrations of the gas.

True, and as implied. It also means that it's only half the story. Doesn't add much credibility to the global claims, if only the industrial areas are studied.

Also find it a little disturbing that water vapor is removed, so that the CO2 and other gases can be measured. It's understandable, since water vapor is the main component, but have yet to see what volume was removed. Seems to be discarded and forgotten, although it varies a great deal. Its a very important component, just not for this purpose. Just another piece that doesn't fit. Like I said earlier, this isn't a field of personal interest or study, but the numbers just don't add up for me. Still a lot of belief-based science, and numbers generated to support the belief. All the data has been smoothed, averaged, or approximated, yet to find anything before it's been cleaned up.

 

[BrownOut]

It's not possible for me to buy into your ideas that all the data is averaged in a way to mislead when post #445 shows separate data from different sites, yet all show a remarkable similarity in terms of rising CO2 concentrations. In fact, there are over 300 sites reporting from 66 countries, many of which are in the Southern hemisphere. **broken link removed** Data from these stations may be averaged or reported separately, as previously shown. Other stations are planned and projects to use advanced chromatology from space based stations are in the works. The picture is already pretty complete, and yet the scientists continue to work hard to all to our knowledge base. The numbers I look at don't appear to be contrived, faked or dishonestly manipulated in any way. Usually, the raw data can be found along side any statistically produced graphics.

 

[Sceadwian]

kchristie, would you care to state what those graphs prove? All you're showing is an increase in C02, with no correlation to anything else.. So you had a point... where? I never argued against scientific data showing that there was a global increase in C02, just what that actually MEANS. Also that data is for so short a period of time it has absolutely no correlative references to the time spans involved in global climate change.

Brownout the pictures is far from complete.

 

[kchriste]

kchristie, would you care to state what those graphs prove? All you're showing is an increase in C02, with no correlation to anything else.. So you had a point... where?

That was my point exactly. I wanted to verify that we all agreed that global CO2 levels were rising. You obviously do. I'm not 100% sure about the rest of 'em.
I want a solid foundation for my "house of cards".

 

[Sceadwian]

kchriste, 30 years of data isn't a foundation for anything on a planet that's 4.5 billion years old. As far as sampling methods used to determine global temperature/c02 levels 30 years isn't even a spec inbetween the data points.