Climategate

[robinson]

At first I thought the email hacking was a fraud, then I thought it was blown out of proportion, then I read them.

Then I started looking into the whole climate science, IPCC clusterfuck, AGW idea in general.

I even ventured into blogs.

It was ugly and disturbing. Not the sort of thing a scientist should have to go through.

Now, just when I thought maybe it was all a huge misunderstanding, a bunch of malcontents and oil company shills stirring up trouble, just when I was able to slip back into my comfort zone, where scientist are the good guys and skeptics are deniers, the final straw happens.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ticle.html

And I am like, what the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?

If the IPCC was a blog, you know, a bunch of losers sitting around writing shit, it would be like, who cares?

But this is THE panel on climate change. This is the big boys club, the United Nations, the policy changing reports, and a shitpot of money as well. Big salaries, bigger contracts.

So I now it looks like the email hacking was the Pentagon papers of this generation. It really is Climategate.

In a new and different internet sort of way.

The Watergate break in led to a lot of things. Nixon WAS a crook. He resigned in disgrace.
The Militaryindustrialcomplex was an evil bunch of bastards, the war in Vietnam was immoral, illegal and they lied about it. People went to jail, they lost power, a war ended, and the crazy people on TV who had been getting shot, mocked by the media and beat up by the cops, ended up being right.

The Climategate break in has now led to a lot more, and it looks like this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Now the media is in on it.

But it's different, because the internet has been on it for a long time. This has become evident from actually reading the internet.

So what is the real science hidden behind the bullshit?

And is there any reasonable middle ground on this one?

[robinson]

The use of 16 reports from the WWF is beyond fucking belief.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

Then there is the acidification of the ocean. (false)

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

The polar bears going extinct. (false)

The glaciers melting (false)

Runaway greenhouse effect (false)

Rising oceans (misrepresented)

Droughts (false)

the list goes on and on.

But the lies. the bullshit, the secrecy and deception, that shit really doesn't work for me.

Especially when money for it comes out of my pocket.

[robinson]

And because it would just suck to be all serious and shit in the SC, bring on the porn

Just when you think things can’t get any more bizarre with the IPCC, having just learned that the IPPC 2007 report used magazine articles for references, head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, provides comedy gold. According to the UK Telegraph, he’s just released what they describe as a “smutty” romance novel, Return to Almora laced with steamy sex, lots of sex. Oh, and Shirley MacLaine.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080111/i ... achuri.jpg

That's right. Shirley MacLaine.

Now it is gettin good.

[Geni]

Then there is the acidification of the ocean. (false)

Nope true. Can dirrectly measure that one.

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

Open to debate.

The polar bears going extinct. (false)

That depends on a number of factors. They may be at risk.

The glaciers melting (false)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White ... r_1973.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White ... r_2006.jpg

Runaway greenhouse effect (false)

Posible in some senarios. Of course "runaway" ranges from "somewhat faster than expected" to "we are completely fucked".

[EvilYeti]

But this is THE panel on climate change. This is the big boys club, the United Nations, the policy changing reports, and a shitpot of money as well. Big salaries, bigger contracts.

If you think the IPCC, or the UN, will ever triumph over the petro industry lobby you need to get your head examined. See the recent FAIL in Copenhagen for example. Nothing they do will ever have any meaningful effect.

There will never, ever be any pro-active solutions that result in curbing emissions of developing nations. There is simply too much money at stake. The only possible solutions are either re-active (i.e. sequestering greenhouse gases) or a disruptive technology that makes fossil fuels no longer cost-effective.

Again, the real story is the war on science:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capita ... scien.html

"...we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."

Cancer is too good for the deniers. Unless its the slow kind, though.

[robinson]

Then there is the acidification of the ocean. (false)

Nope true. Can dirrectly[sic] measure that one.

PH levels in some parts of the ocean changing from 8.3 to 8.2 is not "acidification". Neither is going from 8.2 to 8.15

The great lakes and other freshwater lakes also show no sign of turning to acid. It's scaremongering bullshit.

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

Open to debate.

No, the study that was used in the IPCC report ended up saying AGW caused disasters had not happened.

The polar bears going extinct. (false)

That depends on a number of factors. They may be at risk.

The last warm period between ice ages had both higher temperatures and sea level than our current period. Polar bears did just fine.

The glaciers melting (false)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White ... r_1973.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White ... r_2006.jpg

If even 1% of the ice melted worldwide, just 1%, the oceans would rise by two meters. Since the last warm period had ocean levels 20 meters higher than now, the planet will survive melting ice. So will people.

Runaway greenhouse effect (false)

Posible[sic] in some senarios. Of course "runaway" ranges from "somewhat faster than expected" to "we are completely fucked".

There is no evidence, none, that at any time in the past, even when CO2 was 40 times higher than now, that the planet experienced runaway greenhouse effect. It's scaremongering with no science to support it.

Please stop.

[robinson]

Q: But IPCC and others who have used the IPCC examples have used glaciers as an iconic example of what is happening to world on climate change. Now that iconic example has been demolished?

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080111/i ... achuri.jpg

R.K.P.: Well, that is their preference. I don't think this is iconic. What is iconic is the effect of sea-level rise; what is iconic is impact on agriculture; what is iconic is impact on water; what is iconic is heat waves which have increased in frequency and intensity. I mean, that is a subjective view what you regard as iconic. You may regard a movie star as iconic; others may regard Mahatma Gandhi as iconic. How can the IPCC say that this was iconic?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 65/510/DC1

[Mentat]

It's cute when it thinks it has a grasp of what's going on.

[robinson]

Q: The big issue dogging IPCC this winter is the inclusion of a prediction in the fourth assessment that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. IPCC has offered regret--but not an apology.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080111/i ... achuri.jpg
R.K.P.: We have made a mistake, and we have admitted that. Our job is essentially to bring the science into our assessments from the best sources that exist. Look at the extent of the glaciology work that has been done in this country. It is pathetic. I mean, that is really where we need to come up with an apology.

[EvilYeti]

PH levels in some parts of the ocean changing from 8.3 to 8.2 is not "acidification". Neither is going from 8.2 to 8.15

Deny, deny, deny.

You have just defined acidification.

The great lakes and other freshwater lakes also show no sign of turning to acid. It's scaremongering bullshit.

Freshwater lakes have been undergoing acidification for years due to acid rain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impa ... reshwaters

The lake my cottage is on in Ontario, Canada is almost entirely barren due to this.

No, the study that was used in the IPCC report ended up saying AGW caused disasters had not happened.

Floods and cyclones are trending upwards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trend ... asters.jpg

Oh, and since you are referencing the IPCC I can assume you consider them a valid source now?

The last warm period between ice ages had both higher temperatures and sea level than our current period. Polar bears did just fine.

Given that polar bears and grizzly bears can inter-breed its entirely possible the species developed either during or after the last ice age.

If even 1% of the ice melted worldwide, just 1%, the oceans would rise by two meters. Since the last warm period had ocean levels 20 meters higher than now, the planet will survive melting ice. So will people.

Nice dodge. Most of the sea level rise will be from thermal expansion, not melting glaciers.

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

There is no evidence, none, that at any time in the past, even when CO2 was 40 times higher than now, that the planet experienced runaway greenhouse effect. It's scaremongering with no science to support it.

There is no evidence, none, that at any time in the past CO2 levels have risen as quickly as they are now.

And there is plenty of evidence of periods of mass-extinctions; which we may inadvertently end up pulling the trigger on...

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

Note that both global warming and cooling (to a catastrophic degree) is possible in this scenario.

Please stop.

You really picked a bad place to post this sort of junk, man.

[Rob Lister]

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

Open to debate.

Yea, okay. Let's let the source of many of those claims do the debating.

Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a US-based consultancy, said the Stern report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and the frequency and severity of disasters such as floods and hurricanes.

The Stern report, citing Muir-Wood, said: “New analysis based on insurance industry data has shown that weather-related catastrophe losses have increased by 2% each year since the 1970s over and above changes in wealth, inflation and population growth/movement.

“If this trend continued or intensified with rising global temperatures, losses from extreme weather could reach 0.5%-1% of world GDP by the middle of the century.”

Muir-Wood said his research showed no such thing and accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence”.

The criticism is among the strongest made of the Stern report, which, since its publication in 2006, has influenced policy, including green taxes.

Oops! He appears to be saying that once again, the IPCC, et al, are making shit up.

But I guess if you have a wiki jpg showing a really bad flood it makes it TRUE!

William Connolly must be proud, uh Geni?

[EvilYeti]

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

Open to debate.

Yea, okay. Let's let the source of many of those claims do the debating.

How about the insurance companies?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ate-change

Or are you suggesting we can't trust the private sector to accurately price risk? :D

[Rob Lister]

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

Open to debate.

Yea, okay. Let's let the source of many of those claims do the debating.

How about the insurance companies?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ate-change

Or are you suggesting we can't trust the private sector to accurately price risk? :D

Are you just stupid?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 009710.ece

This is the guy that most of them rely upon. You're a fucking idiot.

And you want the funnest quote of all?

A spokesman for Stern said: “Muir-Wood may have been deceived by his own observations.”

That's right. Yes, you read that right. The guys that relied on Muir-Wood and then changed what they wrote to fit their agenda sez Muir-Wood is deceived by his own observations. I mean, the total nads of that is just incredulous and yet, there are idiots that will be apologists for them -- indeed believe everything they say, no matter the evidence that they lie, cheat and steal at every opportunity.

um...that would be gullible folks like you, Yeti.

Well, Geni too but that's just an artifact of it's Geni's programming.

[EvilYeti]

Are you just stupid?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 009710.ece

This is the guy that most of them rely upon. You're a fucking idiot.

Why don't you read your article next time?

Muir-Wood’s study did show an association between global warming and the impact and frequency of disasters. But he said this was caused by exceptionally strong hurricanes in the final two years of his study.

The guy is disagreeing with the conclusions of a report he himself authored.

[Geni]

Then there is the acidification of the ocean. (false)

Nope true. Can dirrectly[sic] measure that one.

PH levels in some parts of the ocean changing from 8.3 to 8.2 is not "acidification". Neither is going from 8.2 to 8.15

Within most commonly accepted versions of chemistry yes it is.

The great lakes and other freshwater lakes also show no sign of turning to acid. It's scaremongering bullshit.

We've measured it. It's happening.

The increase in natural disasters. (false)

Open to debate.

No, the study that was used in the IPCC report ended up saying AGW caused disasters had not happened.

You've shifted your claim.

The polar bears going extinct. (false)

That depends on a number of factors. They may be at risk.

The last warm period between ice ages had both higher temperatures and sea level than our current period. Polar bears did just fine.

Evidences?

The glaciers melting (false)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White ... r_1973.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White ... r_2006.jpg

If even 1% of the ice melted worldwide, just 1%, the oceans would rise by two meters. Since the last warm period had ocean levels 20 meters higher than now, the planet will survive melting ice. So will people.

The problem is there is little evidence that a civilisation can survive such events.

Runaway greenhouse effect (false)

Posible[sic] in some senarios. Of course "runaway" ranges from "somewhat faster than expected" to "we are completely fucked".

There is no evidence, none, that at any time in the past, even when CO2 was 40 times higher than now, that the planet experienced runaway greenhouse effect. It's scaremongering with no science to support it.

Please stop.

It's a rational responce to known deposits of greenhouse gasses with possible stability issues. If you wish to characterise invesitigation into such issues as "scaremongering" then you are the one attempting to impede rational enquiry.

[manny]

Or are you suggesting we can't trust the private sector to accurately price risk? :D

The NAIC is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a private group comprised primarily of government regulators. You probably want to drop this particular piece of idiocy while your drool is still hitting the cup.

[EvilYeti]

Or are you suggesting we can't trust the private sector to accurately price risk? :D

The NAIC is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a private group comprised primarily of government regulators. You probably want to drop this particular piece of idiocy while your drool is still hitting the cup.

Thine spit cup runneth over...

Statement Nikolaus von Bomhard,
CEO of Munich Re

"The outcome of Copenhagen has left me somewhat stunned. The 2°C goal agreed with China and India at the G8 summit in summer of this year was merely recognised in Copenhagen, with no pledges made. The major industrial countries, along with China and India, have thus retreated behind the lines already established.
At Munich Re, we look closely at a multitude of risks and how to handle them best. Climate change is such a risk, and the need for action is obvious. I therefore find it baffling that so little was achieved during the negotiations in Copenhagen.

Climate change is a fact, and it is almost entirely made by man. It is jointly responsible for the rise in severe weather-related natural disasters, since the weather machine is "running in top gear". The figures speak for themselves: according to data gathered by Munich Re, weather-related natural catastrophes have produced US$ 1,600bn in total losses since 1980, and climate change is definitely a significant contributing factor. We assume that the annual loss amount attributable to climate change is already in the low double-digit billion euro range. And the figure is bound to rise dramatically in future.

What we need now is leadership. It is up to the USA, Europe including Germany, and China to cut the Gordian knot. Progress is likely to be made more easily on a small scale rather than at a climate summit with 193 negotiating partners and thousands of participants. In the light of the Copenhagen experience, I would therefore advocate a rapid resumption of talks with a small party of participants to get the negotiations moving again.

We need a strict climate agreement, and we need it fast. Climate change is a global problem and a challenge for humankind. If the players do nothing but pursue their national interests, we are headed for a climate catastrophe.

Industry is certain to move ahead now and actively develop solutions to curb climate change and prevent its consequences. After all, such solutions make economic sense. One example is the Desertec Industrial Initiative, the huge desert-power project. We at Munich Re will make every effort together with our partners to rapidly turn this vision into reality. In the long run, however, the economy will need a global agreement to prevent a distortion in competitive conditions and relocation of high-carbon production processes and jobs into countries without any regulation mechanisms."

Munich Re is the worlds largest re-insurer, btw.

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

In other words, the CEO of the largest insurance company in the world, that itself insures other smaller insurance companies against catastrophic losses thinks severe weather events caused by global warming is a big problem and is only going to get worse.

But hey, he must be a commie too, right?

On a more serious note, how big a fucking EPIC FAIL do you assholes have to fart out before you shut up?

[manny]

Munich Re is the worlds largest re-insurer, btw.

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

In other words, the CEO of the largest insurance company in the world, that itself insures other smaller insurance companies against catastrophic losses thinks severe weather events caused by global warming is a big problem and is only going to get worse.

But hey, he must be a commie too, right?

On a more serious note, how big a fucking EPIC FAIL do you assholes have to fart out before you shut up?

All of that would be fascinating if I said anything at all about what insurance companies, individually or collectively, believed. However, I did not. I merely pointed out that you had confused a quasi-regulatory agency with an association of free-marketeers. Which you did.

As it happens, I'm of course entirely unsurprised that many insurance executives are eager to find cause to raise their rates, whatever they personally believe. I believe that Mr. von Bomhard believes in AGW, that more people should purchase more insurance at higher prices and that one of those things reinforces the other is merely happenstance.

However, Mr. von Bornhard's view is not universal. Witness the response of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (an actual trade group): "In the months leading up to its adoption by the NAIC, NAMIC presented several arguments opposing the survey. One of these was that there is simply too much uncertainty about the nature of climate change—e.g., the rate at which it is occurring, the extent to which it is caused by human activity, its relationship to natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and droughts, and the economic trade-offs that would be entailed by various actions that might be taken to prevent further warming—for regulators to assume that all insurers have a material exposure to “climate risk” sufficient to justify mandatory “disclosure” of this purported risk to regulators and the public."

[EvilYeti]

All of that would be fascinating if I said anything at all about what insurance companies, individually or collectively, believed. However, I did not. I merely pointed out that you had confused a quasi-regulatory agency with an association of free-marketeers. Which you did.

Except I wasn't talking about them. I was specifically referring to the position of the big re-insurers, whom are the ones that are actually on the line here.

As it happens, I'm of course entirely unsurprised that many insurance executives are eager to find cause to raise their rates, whatever they personally believe. I believe that Mr. von Bomhard believes in AGW, that more people should purchase more insurance at higher prices and that one of those things reinforces the other is merely happenstance.

So you admit the free market isn't capable of accurately pricing risk and needs to be regulated? And the CEO of the worlds most successful re-insurer is incompetent? And as its a publicly held corporation; all its clients and investors are incompetent as well? Pretty bold statement if you ask me.

And if these companies were over-pricing risk; wouldn't that open an opportunity for other insurance companies to step in and make lots of money by under-selling them?

Speaking of which; why don't you and the other deniers put your money where your mouth is and start an insurance company to service New Orleans and Florida? Lots of people in those cities can't get policies at all these days. If the past couple of years were indeed an outlier you will basically be printing money.

Whats the hold-up?

However, Mr. von Bornhard's view is not universal. Witness the response of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (an actual trade group):

Indeed, its in the best interest of the smaller companies to under-price risk; especially for rare events; as they can sell more policies that way. In the event of a catastrophe they just fold and pass their liabilities onto the big re-insurers. Which is why we should pay attention to them; as its in their best interest to price risk as accurately as possible.

And of course, his views are not universal. Except amongst the top two global re-insurers whom in aggregate manage over 60 billion in premiums, that is.

Here is SwissRE (#2) on climate change:

Swiss Re advocates practical implementation of climate adaptation measures at COP15 to support urgent action by countries at risk

14 Dec 2009

Zurich/Copenhagen, 14 December 2009 – Swiss Re representatives are participating at the COP 15 negotiations in Copenhagen, representing the Swiss Insurance Association as part of the official Swiss delegation. The reinsurance company Swiss Re advocates fast transition from Copenhagen discussions to immediate implementation of climate adaptation measures, in order to reduce losses caused by climate risks.

Swiss Re strongly advocates the practical implementation of adaptation measures in the near term with the objective of reducing climate related losses and building economic resilience in the countries and regions most at risk.

A recent Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) study concludes that annual losses due to climate risks could amount up to 19% of a developing country's GDP by 2030. However, action on climate adaptation can significantly reduce economic losses from climate risks by between 40 and 65 percent thereby boosting local economic resilience.

“Our societies urgently need to become more resilient by adapting to severe weather events. For example, current scientific estimates suggest that the sea-level will rise between a half and one and half meters before 2100. Peak surge height could increase by 50%, meaning that a sea-level surges previously seen only once in a 1000 years could now appear on average every 30 years,” said Andreas Spiegel, Swiss Re’s Senior Climate Change Advisor.

Since 1970, 36 of the 40 worst insurance losses have been weather related. This does not even take account of developing countries where over 90% of such events are not insured.

“While the insurance industry is an important contributor to the absorption of volatile risk, it cannot tackle the challenges of climate change alone. To address this public-private partnerships will be indispensable. Beyond traditional insurance, Swiss Re contributes through alternative forms of risk transfer to absorb highly volatile losses. We also offer concrete guidance, based on our expertise and experience as a global reinsurer, for how societies can respond to the climate adaptation challenges,” said David Bresch, Swiss Re’s Head Sustainability and Emerging Risks.

Seriously, how big a turd are you guys willing to eat here?

[DrMatt]

Nothing to see here, just a media circus. Move along.

[robinson]

Isotope signals, on the other hand, are often very similar between trees. This means researchers can gather accurate data from three or four trees instead of the 20 they might need for tree ring width analysis.

"In ring widths there will be more variability between trees. There will be similar trends, but you have larger differences that you would find between the isotopes of different trees," says Porter.

Porter is hoping his work will lay the foundation for a model that can be used to investigate the long-term climate history of the Mackenzie Delta region. Although the temperature record for Inuvik only dates back to 1957, the dead and live tree ring record stretches to nearly 1000 years before present. That prospect excites the young researcher.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141935.htm

Tree rings indicate one thing. How much a tree grew. Rainfall (or another water source) is the main factor in tree growth. But it isn't that simple. There are other factors, and often trees in the exact same conditions right next to each other don't show the same ring patterns.

Drought causes very slow growth. Abundant rain causes a lot of growth. Of course shaded trees may grow less. But temperature has a smaller effect than water supply.

The reason tree rings aren't used after 1960 is because growth rings don't match temperature data.

In the second tree, the isotope ratios all indicate (Fig. 2)
that the Little Ice Age was colder than now and that there
were warm periods in 1650, 1570, 1730, and 1790. Judging from
the warm period at 1730, the temperature coefficient for carbon
appears to be the same as in the first oak but those for
oxygen and hydrogen are half as large. This could be accounted
for if for the second oak the water supply was half
from new precipitation and half from long-stored ground
water. Actually, nothing is known of the water supply of the
second oak, whereas the water supply of the first oak was
completely from new precipitation. Judicious selection of old
trees for further climate study with regard to the source of
their water supply seems indicated.

http://www.pnas.org/content/71/6/2482.full.pdf

[manny]

I think I'm done here.

How about the insurance companies?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ate-change

Or are you suggesting we can't trust the private sector to accurately price risk? :D

Except I wasn't talking about them. I was specifically referring to the position of the big re-insurers, whom are the ones that are actually on the line here.

Yup. My work here is done. Crawl back to your echo chamber, liar.

[robinson]

Here is what the tree data looks like.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com ... _recon.gif

[xouper]

I think I'm done here.

How about the insurance companies?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ate-change

Or are you suggesting we can't trust the private sector to accurately price risk? :D

Except I wasn't talking about them. I was specifically referring to the position of the big re-insurers, whom are the ones that are actually on the line here.

Yup. My work here is done. Crawl back to your echo chamber, liar.

Yup.

Yeti's a true master of that particular "debating" technique.

My favorite is this recent example from another thread:

... I'm citing *Google* as the source; specifically the ranking of the result as number one. Google ranks results based on the the number of other sites linking to the source that reference that topic.

So, its fairly obvious that the majority of the worlds population considers 'ocean acidification' to mean 'anthropogenic ocean acidification' as the top three google hits for 'ocean acidification' all reference articles specifically discussing 'anthropogenic ocean acidification'.

... Given that these are the top 20 results as determined by Google's PageRank algorithm its safe to say the two phrases are interchangeable in the popular vernacular.

And then farther down:

... You mentioned this google search as if it was relevant to anything:

Apparently google is only a relevant source when Yeti uses it.

[DrMatt]

Did they have fiber?

[robinson]

:lol:

[robinson]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =121139996

Host Guy Raz explores some of the fallout from the "climate-gate" e-mail hack with Dr. Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. And she says the e-mails reveal a lack of transparency and a lot of "locker room talk" in the climate research community.

RAZ: How much damage have these emails caused for people like you who study and research climate change?

Dr. CURRY: Well, I mean, I believe that this was a blow to the credibility of our science. And I'm concerned particularly in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report. You know, 1,000 scientists contribute to this from 130 different countries. It's a process that takes several years.

So the IPCC is really the authoritative assessment of our science for policymakers. And some of these emails do mention the IPCC and trying to keep certain journal articles or papers out of the IPCC, and I think that's wrong.

RAZ: Let me interrupt you for a moment. You have spent time reading some of these emails.

Dr. CURRY: Yes.

RAZ: Is there something that you read, in layman's terms, that particularly bothered you or worried you?

Dr. CURRY: Okay. The things that bothered me were the discussions about trying to deny Freedom of Information Act requests. There were things in there related to trying to unduly influence the peer review process of some skeptical papers, trying to keep them out of the published literature. And this is done because the IPCC will only consider peer-reviewed journal articles in the assessment. So trying to keep certain things out of the literature is a way of keeping them out of the IPCC report.

I don't believe that these scientists are deliberately cooking the data. But I do believe that if everything was more transparent, and the data was more publicly available and their methods, scrutiny by other scientists would lead to improved methods of doing this and it would speed up the scientific progress.

RAZ: How do you think scientists should combat uncertainty and denial raised by those who call themselves skeptics, global climate change skeptics?

Dr. CURRY: Okay, there's two classes of skeptic here. You know, one is scientists who are actually doing work, okay, and that's the kind of skepticism we need. Without that skepticism, our science would be much weaker. And then there's another class of skeptics who get their climate science from talk radio. They don't really understand any of the science or the physics, but they don't believe climate change.

But the failure to distinguish between, like, the advocacy group, talk radio kind of skeptics versus scientists, researchers and even people on blogs who are actually doing analysis, you know, technical people analyzing the data and doing analysis, I think all of that kind of skepticism needs to be looked at, rather than trying to dismiss it in the way that I'm seeing, you know, in these emails.

[hammegk]

Did they have fiber?

Bruce has started several threads that offer a more appropriate venue for you to discuss your digestive system problems.

[robinson]

DNFTT!

[hammegk]

Go with that attitude and you'll never make another post.

[robinson]

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA% ... verage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA% ... verage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA% ... verage.gif

[robinson]

Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth

Posted by TinaT on February 1st, 2010

Speed is not a word typically associated with trees; they can take centuries to grow. However, a new study to be published the week of Feb. 1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change.

For more than 20 years forest ecologist Geoffrey Parker has tracked the growth of 55 stands of mixed hardwood forest plots in Maryland. The plots range in size, and some are as large as 2 acres. Parker’s research is based at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 26 miles east of the nation’s capital.

Parker’s tree censuses have revealed that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected. He and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute postdoctoral fellow Sean McMahon discovered that, on average, the forest is growing an additional 2 tons per acre annually. That is the equivalent of a tree with a diameter of 2 feet sprouting up over a year.

Forests and their soils store the majority of the Earth’s terrestrial carbon stock. Small changes in their growth rate can have significant ramifications in weather patterns, nutrient cycles, climate change and biodiversity. Exactly how these systems will be affected remains to be studied.

Parker and McMahon’s paper focuses on the drivers of the accelerated tree growth. The chief culprit appears to be climate change, more specifically, the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.

[robinson]

The paper isn't published yet. But I did a check on this. Rainfall increased in the last 20 years. Including a few record years, as well as record snow events in early spring.

It will be interesting to see how they avoid that in the paper.

But the math is the real killer in this regard. Add extra two tons a year, multiply by acres of forest in world = missing CO2?

[robinson]

Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 February 2010 18.04 GMT

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 February 2010 21.00 GMT

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies
guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 February 2010 21.00 GMT

Fucked up part about those three stories. All three by the same author.

[robinson]

FOX News is covering it in the States.

[robinson]

Newspaper reports that unsubstantiated numbers were used intentionally
By Janet Raloff


A London newspaper reports today that the unsubstantiated Himalayan-glacier melt figures contained in a supposedly authoritative 2007 report on climate warming were used intentionally, despite the report’s lead author knowing there were no data to back them up.

Until now, the organization that published the report – the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – had argued the exaggerated figures in that report were an accident: due to insufficient fact checking of the source material.

Uh, no. It now appears the incident wasn’t quite that innocent.

The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers – the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia – could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” In other words, Rose says, Lal “last night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... n_accident

[xouper]

... The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers ...

And if Lal knew it, then there is good reason to believe that IPCC chair Pachauri also knew it and deliberately used that bogus data to get grant money.

[Bearguin]

... The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers ...

And if Lal knew it, then there is good reason to believe that IPCC chair Pachauri also knew it and deliberately used that bogus data to get grant money.

But.But. There is no incentive for them to lie.

[ed]

... The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers ...

And if Lal knew it, then there is good reason to believe that IPCC chair Pachauri also knew it and deliberately used that bogus data to get grant money.

But.But. There is no incentive for them to lie.

You kidding?

It's a gravey train. Ask St. Al.

[Bearguin]

... The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers ...

And if Lal knew it, then there is good reason to believe that IPCC chair Pachauri also knew it and deliberately used that bogus data to get grant money.

But.But. There is no incentive for them to lie.

You kidding?

It's a gravey train. Ask St. Al.

Of course I'm fucking kidding.

It's EY who thinks there is no incentive for them to lie.