Climategate

[Merlyn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wt0ZaXu_CA

Value added data, indeed.

The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change. In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

Gathering fire wood,
Merlyn

[mwyalchen]

Merlin, that video is an excellent example of the way deniers are cherrypicking the emails, and lying about what they mean. If you doubt me, look thorough the RealClimate threads for yourself.

Phil Jones probably does need to stand down for now, to cool things down - another article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/0 ... steps-down And I'll be interested to see the outcome of the enquiry. But, despite the attention all this is getting in the States, it's a storm in a teacup.

There are a lot of people with a strong interest in having us all believe that everything is so uncertain that we should do nothing. If we let ourselves be convinced by them, we'll find out if they're right in twenty years or so - and if they're wrong, well...

Though, frankly, if they were right, they'd be producing better science to back themselves up, instead of spending all their time trying to pick holes in other peoples' science using arguments that fall apart as soon as anyone competent looks at them. Why is it that, despite having access to most of the data already, none of them have come up with a decent computer model that accounts for current trends as well as the AGW models do?

[DJ Droood]

Will "Climategate" sway public opinion? I think when people rationally examine both sides of the issue, and look at the data, they.....OMG, did you hear Tiger Woods had an affair???!!

[Merlyn]

The troubling issue is the taking advantage disinformation people are making with value added data.
"this makes my case for higher tax" or "This makes my case for global warming".
In either case the information is cherry-picked to make these cases.

Truth is "Climate Change" happens. It happens no matter if humans live on earth or not. The issue to express that we do make a .06% difference is being exploited as if the entire warming trend is man made. It is not. The shock and awe of watching glaciers melt and other affects of natural climate change should not have been confused with the affect we humans do have.
Why?

For a few reasons,
We do have a major problem because "Global warming" does not address the issues of climate change.
We need proper forestry to avoid the devastating fires in the west. Because people are distracted in thinking, no one is confronting this issue.
We do need investment in ecological manufacturing, not selling our industry out and simply polluting where the EPA cannot stop them. (China is producing many american products as example)

Climate change and global warming are two distinct issues, and both are real.
This is what the science NEEDS to express.
We do need to confront both issues, but in comprehensive ways, real ways and not by taxing C02.
Rather we need economic savvy science to take hold and practical management, not tax and spend economics.


And Tiger Woods should know better!
Merlyn

[Kernos]

Will "Climategate" sway public opinion? I think when people rationally examine both sides of the issue, and look at the data, they.....OMG, did you hear Tiger Woods had an affair???!!

The average person does not rationally examine issues. They emotionally examine issues or take sides in accordance with their preconceived notions.

The Tiger Woodie affair -- much ado about nothing. Is all press becoming tabloid?

[Merlyn]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbea ... er.zoo.cnn

TigerWoodsGate seems to be more important than the "end of the world as we know it"

Climate change has a number of other issues exampled in New Orleans and by the mudslides. Building homes in areas of silt, in the middle of pine forests, in low flood planes and generally over populated areas causing water-shed problems, all leads to what we have today in the US. This ignoring of 100 year floods and building anyway, and the areas of natural fire cycle of pine forests is criminal.
It totally ignores the normal cycles of warming and weather we know all too well.

Then there is the escalation of this by global warming. One example of this is in the building codes. Now, believe it or not, anything built where I live, must have hurricane specs.
I live a good 50 miles inland. But due to the projected amplification of weather cycles by global warming, any structure built must have hurricane clamps on each truss, and foundation bolts anchoring the walls.

Tiger Woods however is looking at climate change as opportunity to play golf year-round...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579292,00.html
Among other things..

Merlyn

[Twig]

Kernos -- To answer your question about the press "becoming tabloid," the answer is a resounding YES. MSM (main-stream media) is so happy to have this tawdry business to cover so that it doesn't have to concentrate on the real issue of human-induced climate change and its effects. Ratings! What is sad is that most people would rather hear about his wife whacking the Escalade with a seven-iron than about how much CO2 is in the air we breathe.

[Guardian]

Some scientific videos on the topic for educational purposes:

The Scientific Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo *

The (scentific) Objections: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI *

Anatomy of a Myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

Gore vs. Durkin (they're both wrong) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM ***

Isn't it natural? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU ***

Those Hacked Emails : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg **

*valuable information
** blah blah creationist-style quote mining debunked - is this really necessary? apparently so because people are GULLIBLE.
*** must-see's

[Merlyn]

Hi Guardian,
Interesting and informative u-tubes.
Truth is, no one has the magic formula yet to totally predict climate change.
Interesting real science shows that CO2 is not the only or total controlling factor in climate change, and frankly without it we all would fry like eggs on a skillet.

As things go I find I have to actually read, research and study. Any of the political or economic aspects of climate change or global warming are treated with "value added" disinformation. This obviously to further the goals of those who stand to make a profit from pushing an agenda of tax revenue or outright scams.

From what I see and what one of your more important u-tubes makes clear, there are interweaving influences which cause temperature change. Some of these are predictable and some are not. These factors which cause change in our climate are not all temperature related, but cause temperature results, they are cyclic and random and some even possibly one time actions of the earth, sun or space.

We could in fact do everything right and still end up with no impact or do everything wrong and have little or no influence on scope of things which really change our climate.
So..... As I see more and more, my initial feeling becomes more fact than fiction.

Claiming that we can affect climate change is a farce. Claiming that we can influence global warming is a fact.
The two are in truth totally different subjects subject to each other, yet quite possibly moot, depending on what really does happen. It's a crap shoot at best.

Pollution however is REAL. And what we need to do is stop burning all our fuel.
It is a one time reserve, there is no replacement for it, and using nuclear fuel is a waste disposal problem which is killing our first tropic level of food; our oceans.

The glazing over of the truth, the false prophecy and BS politics are all diverting the truth and making it impossible to enact change for the right reasons.
Rather it is in fact directing change in all the wrong directions, ignoring the facts of our actions and will cause an ecological disaster already at a catastrophic level.

Wind and solar are our two free energy sources.
This is deliberately ignored, as is the need to clean up our act, stop the progression with pollution and killing of life in our oceans.


It just might be a very inconvenient truth.
Merlyn

[Guardian]

Merlyn,

I don't disagree that there are other things we can have a greater effect on. TBH I've been very sick of people supposedly living green lives, but the only thing they do to live green is reduce carbon emissions. WE as individuals have very little effect on the carbon output from our planet, we are a drop in the ocean. Likewise, WE have very little control over the markets for various fuel sources. You can't boycott your power plant because they're burning coal. Or I suppose you could, but you'd really be the only one suffering greatly. More importantly (and the thing that really drives me insane), the OIL that is used to make gasoline for cars, plastic for computers, cars, and kids toys, is the same OIL that is required to make the plastic used in hospitals - to keep our modern level of health care working. The IV's, disposable syringes, and nearly anything useful you can find in a hospital, is made out of the same sh*t we're burning up in our cars?! How ridiculously stupid is that?! I digress...
Habitat loss (responsible for more yearly extinctions and endangerments than any other cause) is not something we are helpless to solve, we have quite a lot of ability of reducing waste gone to landfills, assisting with habitat restoration, exotics removal, etc etc. This is something I feel rather strongly about, you can do infinitely more good as an individual in the hours that you spend arguing with people about global warming if you used those hours to assist a local cause in habitat restoration.
That being said, the point of those videos is to show you that there are many aspects to global warming, it's not exactly what we think it is, but that the recent trends in warming are anthropogenic, due to our increased CO2 emissions. Global Warming and Global Climate Change are intrinsically linked, if the temperature changes, so too does the climate. THIS is why they're used interchangeable. Yes, we can only directly effect the temperature change, but that doesn't mean we're not effecting the climate as well.
More importantly, the temperature and climate of this planet directly effects OUR ABILITY TO LIVE HERE. If for no other reason than that should this be taken seriously. No, it might not happen immediately, but there are certain systems which utilize "positive feedback" - remember his discussion about spinning into an ice age or a warming trend?? Many things can trigger these, but if WE are the ones triggering them (google scholar "anthropogenic climate change" and -read the articles-) then essentially WE are triggering a positive feedback cycle which will heat this planet to a point where it will be unlivable for us. If the "hidden agenda" is keeping us all alive - I'm not complaining.

[Twig]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-humanity

[mwyalchen]

Merlyn, I agree there are uncertainties; and it certainly does take a lot of work to work out anything about this! And I know from what you've already posted that you, for one, are not arguing that because of the uncertainties we should do nothing.

But - apart from the obvious point that the mechanism by which CO2 heats the atmosphere is well-established, and that temperatures for the last fifty years are going up. very much in line with CO2 model predictions -

- I think it's worth considering that there is a whole industry out there dedicated to persuading us just that - that it's all so complicated, that we really can't be certain and that therefore we should do nothing.[quote]In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (Ice). Its founding documents were leaked. The text has been made available online by the scientist Naomi Oreskes. The strategy was spelt out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association: to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)".

Ice was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the energy and commerce or ways and means committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to "demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming." If it worked, Ice would "implement program nationwide".

It identified "two possible target audiences": "Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, Ice said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence … "

"Target 2: younger, lower-income women" … "These women are more receptive ... to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be "green" consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information …"

Ice discovered that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues." Here are some of the messages it tested:

"Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat."

"Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?"

"How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?"*

These messages must have worked, because they were later used by Ice in a wider media campaign[/i]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry

See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-industry

[Merlyn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8415307.stm
As we watch the protests and the progression, one thing becomes clear, this entire global warming debate has become a mess.
If it was what is claimed, and clear, real, and without question, perhaps this would be a different outcome. However those groups most concerned with the real problems are the ones getting arrested, shut out and told they cannot be a part of it.

So it is a rich people only debate.... That is totally backwards from real, as it is the poor who are suffering from the problems being discussed.

Not only should we do something, we should be on point. But this climate gate is all about goal oriented divisive progress. It is not about the glaring obvious real problems.
Also with the disinformation comes the outside influence of latent fear mongering. Everything from the 2012 debate to religious apocalypse taints the views of people in the "chicken little syndrome". With so much going on, and oil wars, civil wars, and even nuclear ambitions, any faults in the climate debate run very large.

Meanwhile......

The real, proven, obvious and catastrophic pollution issues are being ignored!
Speculation on CO2 has diverted attention from already real time problems.

In essence... I HATE global warming BS.
Personally I find it to be a chicken little prophecy in a time of shock and awe mongering we CANNOT afford.
It is obvious we need to act on pollution, and when we do we immediately reduce CO2. So the entire spectacle of false promises is self defeating. And IMO designed to be so.
Trying to tie it into global warming is derailing the real fight!

That is my problem with it.

Truth is, those of us who are working from the opposite end of the stick, reducing the carbon footprint, are the only ones making any progress at all.
Odd as it is, eliminating the need for oil, coal and such is the only way to stop those who profit from it.

Grass roots may be the only success. Those who make billions on oil are not likely to find ways not to use it.
Energy is free, we have all we need, every day. We just need to harness it.
It is that simple.

Just to illustrate how insane this global warming issue is and how it would impact even cow dung;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... latestnews
The plan calls for persuading more American farmers to purchase an anaerobic digester, which essentially converts cow manure into electricity.
The bottom line of this is: stop ALL production of everything while other countries spew and pollute unchecked.

Frankly this is all cow dung!



Merlyn

[Kernos]

There is virtually no debate in the scientific community about human induced elevation of atmospheric CO2 concentration. I agree with Merlyn that all pollution needs be considered for other reasons. But, the current crisis concerns CO2 because it is one thing humans can, if they are willing, control that will effect global warming.

There is great debate in the political community and of course those whose livelihood and power depends on maintaining the status quo. It is in the latter's interest to deny the science.

But, the questions are not political, they are physical and global. Politicians have neither the means, nor the training to deal with this unprecedented disaster for human civilization. CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1800 to nearly 400 ppm today. ~350 ppm is the maximum level possible for humans to maintain the current level of 'civilization'. We are already above that level and the rate of rise is accelerating. There is good evidence that we are entering a positive feedback situation. Methane concentrations from primarily 'natural' sources are increasing because mean temperatures are rising and methane (CH4) is much more potent at keeping heat from escaping the earth than CO2. It would be better to burn the CH4 into CO2 and H20 than let it into the air.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091221/mckibben

The question is not should we attempt to decrease the amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere. The question is not should we try to change the rate of increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (slow it down). The questions are not about how much or by when. The question is how can we decrease the CO2 levels NOW and significantly below 350 ppm— that is, if we want to maintain a global civilization at its current state.

We all know that ain't gonna happen. So be prepared for significant changes in civilization and your personal lifestyle in the coming years. In some ways I'm glad I'm a geezer and not a kid.

How could we do it now? Decrease the world population to 1900 levels (<2 billion— a pandemic that is 67% fatal would do it) and organize the rest to create CO2 sinks, like planting green things and restoring the rain forests. Make a mandatory birth rate of zero, so we have to start over again in several centuries.

OTOH, we can and probably will just wait, do little and see what happens. Careers in map making would be a good choice in the near future.

[DJ Droood]

There is great debate in the political community and of course those whose livelihood and power depends on maintaining the status quo.

If it wasn't for human nature, this problem would be so much easier to solve. Destroying the status quo, livelihoods and power dependency (and perhaps you are just referring to oil execs, but really, our whole civilization is built on fossil fuels) because the crocuses are blooming a few weeks earlier is a tough sell, even for people who believe all the doom and gloom predictions.

How could we do it now? Decrease the world population to 1900 levels (<2 billion— a pandemic that is 67% fatal would do it) and organize the rest to create CO2 sinks, like planting green things and restoring the rain forests. Make a mandatory birth rate of zero, so we have to start over again in several centuries.

Here is a paradox....as part of the plan, we are also supposed to be sending billions of dollars to Baby Doc dictators in the Third World...supposing they spend the money on alleviating poverty, revitalizing their (green!) economies, lowering infant mortality and fighting hunger and disease (and not buying condos in Paris for their extended families), how will this population boom effect the C02 bottom line?

[DJ Droood]

I heard a scientist on the radio the other day proposing this....seems like a "Hail Mary", but it is late in the game....

Geo-engineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming
Air

Some of the most extreme ideas for climate engineering involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Earth's surface, as a way to offset the increase in temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Caldeira calculates that reflecting just 2% of the Sun's light from the right places on Earth (mainly the Arctic) would be enough to counteract the warming effect from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One approach is to insert "scatterers" into the stratosphere. Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.

In a separate study, Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh proposes building 300-tonne ships that could spray micrometre-sized drops of seawater into the air under stratocumulus clouds. "The method is not intended to make new clouds. It will just make existing clouds whiter," he wrote. The ships would drag turbines in their wake, which would provide the power needed to spray the water.

more...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... edhabitats

I wish I could find the link to the science guy that was talking about this on the radio...he explained it as being very inexpensive (comparatively) and it is supposed to go hand in hand with carbon reductions..not as a subsitute.

[Twyrch]

How could we do it now? Decrease the world population to 1900 levels (<2 billion— a pandemic that is 67% fatal would do it)

Another world war would do the trick... Isn't Armageddon supposed to take out 3/4 of the world's population or something?

[Kernos]

How could we do it now? Decrease the world population to 1900 levels (<2 billion— a pandemic that is 67% fatal would do it)

Another world war would do the trick... Isn't Armageddon supposed to take out 3/4 of the world's population or something?

The problem with a world war are the nukes which would leave much of the earth uninhabitable for most species. I think plague, famine, pestilence (and the pale rider) are more environmentally sound.

[Merlyn]

Isn't Armageddon supposed to take out 3/4 of the world's population or something?

Yes, and they all go to heaven, thus blocking the suns rays, so God had the plan already figured out eh?

[mwyalchen]

I find this sort of geo-engineering proposals very alarming, for a whole range of reasons. I won't try to summarise them myself - this does it better:

The geo-engineering option that is being talked about here is the addition of SO2 to the stratosphere where it oxidises to SO4 (sulphate) aerosols which, since they are reflective, reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the ground. The zeroth order demonstration of this possibility is shown by the response of the climate to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 which caused a maximum 0.5ºC cooling a year or so later. Under business-as-usual scenarios, the radiative forcing we can expect from increasing CO2 by the end of the century are on the order of 4 to 8 W/m2 – requiring the equivalent to one to two Pinatubo’s every year if this kind of geo-engineering was the only response. And of course, you couldn’t stop until CO2 levels came back down (hundreds, if not thousands of years later) without hugely disruptive and rapid temperature rises. As Deltoid neatly puts it: “What could possibly go wrong?”.

The answer is plenty. Alan Robock discussed some of the issues here the last time this came up (umm… weeks ago). The basic issues over and above the costs of delivering the SO2 to the stratosphere are that a) once started you can’t stop without much more serious consequences so you are setting up a multi-centennial commitment to continually increasing spending (of course, if you want to stop because of huge disruption that geo-engineering might be causing, then you are pretty much toast), b) there would be a huge need for increased monitoring from the ground and space, c) who would be responsible for any unanticipated or anticipated side effects and how much would that cost?, and d) who decides when, where and how much this is used. For point ‘d’, consider how difficult it is now to come up with an international agreement on reducing emissions and then ponder the additional issues involved if India or China are concerned that geo-engineering will cause a persistent failure of the monsoon? None of these issues are trivial or cheap to deal with, and yet few are being accounted for in most popular discussions of the issue (including the chapter we are discussing here).

Is geo-engineering a fix?

In a word, no. To be fair, if the planet was a single column with completely homogeneous properties from the surface to the top of the atmosphere and the only free variable was the surface temperature, it would be fine. Unfortunately, the real world (still) has an ozone layer, winds that depend on temperature gradients that cause European winters to warm after volcanic eruptions, rainfall that depends on the solar heating at the surface of the ocean and decreases dramatically after eruptions, clouds that depend on the presence of condensation nuclei, plants that have specific preferences for direct or diffuse light, and marine life that relies on the fact that the ocean doesn’t dissolve calcium carbonate near the surface.

The point is that a planet with increased CO2 and ever-increasing levels of sulphates in the stratosphere is not going to be the same as one without either. The problem is that we don’t know more than roughly what such a planet would be like.

And (soon after in the same article)

There is one further contradiction in the idea that geo-engineering is a fix. In order to proceed with such an intervention one would clearly need to rely absolutely on climate model simulations and have enormous confidence that they were correct (otherwise the danger of over-compensation is very real even if you decided to start off small). As with early attempts to steer hurricanes, the moment the planet did something unexpected, it is very likely the whole thing would be called off. It is precisely because climate modellers understand that climate models do not provide precise predictions that they have argued for a reduction in the forces driving climate change. The existence of a near-perfect climate model is therefore a sine qua non for responsible geo-engineering, but should such a model exist, it would likely alleviate the need for geo-engineering in the first place since we would know exactly what to prepare for and how to prevent it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/

Adding to that, although you say that "it is supposed to go hand in hand with carbon reductions..not as a subsitute" I do feel these proposals for a techno-fix are going to be seen as reasons (yet more reasons...) why we don't actually have to addess CO2 so urgently.