The environment thread

[Y2HH]

Actually, wait, let me alter that - in this case, they didn't even fail to publish (I just looked back at one of the articles with quotes). They published properly - they were just debating in an email about not filling an FOI request.

 

Still bad, mind you, but nothing nearly as dramatic as you are putting it. This doesn't effect outcomes.

 

It calls those outcomes into question because it calls the character of these scientists into question. If they'd talk about doing something like that via email, who's to say they didn't do other things that were never logged or in writing anywhere? If they never did anything like this in the first place, nobody would be talking about it is my point. The fact this happened is casting doubt into everything they accomplished, whether it should or not. It's tainted now.

 

You can make excuses and say they were "being human", but in the arena of science, there is no excuse for this, on any level.

 

It is dramatic for that very reason.

[NorthSideSox72]

It calls those outcomes into question because it calls the character of these scientists into question. If they'd talk about doing something like that via email, who's to say they didn't do other things that were never logged or in writing anywhere? If they never did anything like this in the first place, nobody would be talking about it is my point. The fact this happened is casting doubt into everything they accomplished, whether it should or not. It's tainted now.

 

You can make excuses and say they were "being human", but in the arena of science, there is no excuse for this, on any level.

 

It is dramatic for that very reason.

I don't particularly disagree with any of your individual points here - I think you are right about them. I just don't find it to be the earth-shattering discovery that its being made out to be. There is a unison chorus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces all saying that, yes, the climate is changing with a rapidity and consequence that we need to heed, and yes, there is SOME EXTENT of human causality (how much is, of course, up for debate). So I am supposed to believe that is all B.S. because some scientists were snarky about FOIA requests in an email?

 

[Y2HH]

I don't particularly disagree with any of your individual points here - I think you are right about them. I just don't find it to be the earth-shattering discovery that its being made out to be. There is a unison chorus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces all saying that, yes, the climate is changing with a rapidity and consequence that we need to heed, and yes, there is SOME EXTENT of human causality (how much is, of course, up for debate). So I am supposed to believe that is all B.S. because some scientists were snarky about FOIA requests in an email?

 

Well I agree it's not earth shattering -- I just wish it hadn't happened. I just don't see a place for this type of thing in science. Once it's in there, we'll never get it back out because it'll start becoming "accepted". There are certain members of society you trust at their word, and scientists are one of these objective parties, or at least I thought they were. Even when the science disagrees with their politics or beliefs, they'd trust the science, and report it unvarnished...the way it was supposed to be.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't particularly disagree with any of your individual points here - I think you are right about them. I just don't find it to be the earth-shattering discovery that its being made out to be. There is a unison chorus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces all saying that, yes, the climate is changing with a rapidity and consequence that we need to heed, and yes, there is SOME EXTENT of human causality (how much is, of course, up for debate). So I am supposed to believe that is all B.S. because some scientists were snarky about FOIA requests in an email?

I disagree and say that it is earth shattering by comparrison. Everythgn these people did now needs to be redone, with extra emphasis on everything being done aboveboard and in the open. That means many more years of study, millions more dollars,etc. Basing any decisions of the outcomes of thier data would almost be criminal considering that the data is untrustworthy, at best. They hid data, refused to disclose data, manipulated data to get desired results, ignored data that didnt fit, 'lost' thier base data, and they had an inner circle of devoitees that peer reviewed each other.

[BigSqwert]

I disagree and say that it is earth shattering by comparrison. Everythgn these people did now needs to be redone, with extra emphasis on everything being done aboveboard and in the open. That means many more years of study, millions more dollars,etc. Basing any decisions of the outcomes of thier data would almost be criminal considering that the data is untrustworthy, at best. They hid data, refused to disclose data, manipulated data to get desired results, ignored data that didnt fit, 'lost' thier base data, and they had an inner circle of devoitees that peer reviewed each other.

Are you under the assumption that all climate change science studying/testing in the world was performed by these particular scientists?

[EvilMonkey]

Are you under the assumption that all climate change science studying/testing in the world was performed by these particular scientists?

over 2/3 all research depended on the initial temp data provided by that group and conveniently 'lost'.

[CrimsonWeltall]

over 2/3 all research depended on the initial temp data provided by that group and conveniently 'lost'.

 

It's not lost as in "doesn't exist". The CRU got the raw data from various meteorological groups around the world, then they did all their work on it to get corrected or adjusted data, then they (stupidly) didn't keep the original raw data. The small groups still have the data.

 

And they couldn't release raw data publicly because their contracts with the data collectors prohibited them from doing so.

[NorthSideSox72]

over 2/3 all research depended on the initial temp data provided by that group and conveniently 'lost'.

That is complete nonsense. The weather data is from agencies like NOAA - this school didn't create the data.

 

[StrangeSox]

That is complete nonsense. The weather data is from agencies like NOAA - this school didn't create the data.

 

Stop bringing those facts around here. We all know now that all climate data is from a handful of dishonest liar so-called scientists who faked the entire thing, thus invalidating the entire field of climatology. And that means we can keep pumping billions of tons of emissions into the atmosphere consequence-free.

[StrangeSox]

I disagree and say that it is earth shattering by comparrison. Everythgn these people did now needs to be redone, with extra emphasis on everything being done aboveboard and in the open. That means many more years of study, millions more dollars,etc. Basing any decisions of the outcomes of thier data would almost be criminal considering that the data is untrustworthy, at best. They hid data, refused to disclose data, manipulated data to get desired results, ignored data that didnt fit, 'lost' thier base data, and they had an inner circle of devoitees that peer reviewed each other.

 

 

LOL.

[Balta1701]

LOL.

The sad thing is...everything in their data has been redone, probably a dozen times over.

[Y2HH]

The sad thing is...everything in their data has been redone, probably a dozen times over.

 

Good, so they won't have a problem redoing it a 13th time, then.

[EvilMonkey]

The sad thing is...everything in their data has been redone, probably a dozen times over.

With the same 'massaged' data.

[StrangeSox]

The sad thing is...everything in their data has been redone, probably a dozen times over.

 

You're just another greedy millionaire scientist in on the massive global conspiracy for grant money. What do you know?

 

With the same 'massaged' data.

 

Plotting decibels on a log10 scale is "massaging" the data.

 

It's like "theory" in common usage meaning guess or hunch being different from theory in scientific terminology. That word does not mean what you think it means.

[Balta1701]

With the same 'massaged' data.

The sad thing is...the data set for the Hacked emails...is the most conservative of the available data sets as it excludes most of the polar data sets which show the largest warming. The other independent data sets show that things are even worse.

[EvilMonkey]

The sad thing is...the data set for the Hacked emails...is the most conservative of the available data sets as it excludes most of the polar data sets which show the largest warming. The other independent data sets show that things are even worse.

NASA raw data says otherwise.

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity

 

 

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/h...sd06oct97_1.htm

[StrangeSox]

You're linking to a page dated October 2, 1997. How about some more recent data and analysis?

[NorthSideSox72]

You're linking to a page dated October 2, 1997. How about some more recent data and analysis?

That doesn't bother me as much as them looking at a very short time frame, and oh-by-the-way one which included major volcanic events like Pinatubo, Surtsey and St. Helen's. So, duh, the lower level atmosphere didn't warm.

 

Further, what the temperatures are doing at 30,000' or 60,000' or 100,000' may be interesting, but even if those altitudes are NOT warming, that doesn't undo what damage is being done closer to the surface. It may, possibly, help slow the warming process - that might be worth studying. But its the temps near the surface that effect us the most. That is where ice melts, where freezes change, etc.

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

You're linking to a page dated October 2, 1997. How about some more recent data and analysis?

 

That's because the 90's data showed a clear warming trend, I believe it was one of the hottest decades ever on record, but since the 90's ended, the data no longer shows that trend continuing despite emission increasing worldwide, so data in the 00's is counter to the data in the 90's -- thus it's more convenient to ignore it and point to data from 97.

 

That said, while I'm not as big of a believer in this as many, I do believe we have a contribution to climate change, I just think humans and their infinite egos like to believe our impact is much MUCH greater than it actually is. I also think when the infinite equation was originally written, changing factors such as the life on Earth and it's contributions to these changes were taken into account by mother earth...and promptly dismissed in a "Meh" fashion.

 

Each person should do whatever they can to help, but I wouldn't change your entire life over it, either. Also, educate yourselves, this is the utmost importance. For example, recycling plastic does NOT help. It causes MORE pollution to recycle plastic then to create NEW plastic combined with incinerating the old plastic. Recycling, for things that actually SAVE money/resources, is WORTH MONEY. This is why they pay you for your used aluminum, however, you never get a penny for your used plastic. Ask yourselves why this is. The answer is because they can't turn a profit from it, because it costs more in time/energy to recycle it thus no profit. The answer to this is simple, however people don't wanna hear it: STOP USING THINGS BOTTLED IN PLASTIC. PERIOD. No, instead, we continue to use them thinking that recycling them makes a difference, when it doesn't. Now, you can tell this to a "recycler" and they'll say you are crazy. They won't go research it or anything, they'll just dismiss you as a republican nut job.

[BigSqwert]

That's because the 90's data showed a clear warming trend, I believe it was one of the hottest decades ever on record, but since the 90's ended, the data no longer shows that trend continuing despite emission increasing worldwide, so data in the 00's is counter to the data in the 90's -- thus it's more convenient to ignore it and point to data from 97.

So the melting glaciers worldwide and increased ocean temperatures are due to a cooling trend?

[Y2HH]

So the melting glaciers worldwide and increased ocean temperatures are due to a cooling trend?

 

This is the typical response I expect these days, a counter argument that had nothing to do with what I said in the first place.

 

Rather than giving you a reply to your non reply, I'm going to simply ask -- am I lying about the data comparison from the 90's to the 00's? Yes or no?

 

The 90's showed a clear warming trend -- FACT.

 

The 00's did not -- FACT.

 

You can twist this all you want with responses to questions that weren't asked, but those two facts remain.

[StrangeSox]

That's because the 90's data showed a clear warming trend, I believe it was one of the hottest decades ever on record, but since the 90's ended, the data no longer shows that trend continuing despite emission increasing worldwide, so data in the 00's is counter to the data in the 90's -- thus it's more convenient to ignore it and point to data from 97.

 

The 00's still show the general warming trend. It's just not as high as the spike from the 90's because the 90's, particularly '98, had some anomalous years. Look at GAT from the 50's through now and your trendline will still have a positive slope.

 

edit:

If GAT in the 00's is higher than it was in the 50's-80's but a little off the highs of the 90's, its still a long-term warming trend.

 

Edited December 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

That said, while I'm not as big of a believer in this as many, I do believe we have a contribution to climate change, I just think humans and their infinite egos like to believe our impact is much MUCH greater than it actually is. I also think when the infinite equation was originally written, changing factors such as the life on Earth and it's contributions to these changes were taken into account by mother earth...and promptly dismissed in a "Meh" fashion.

 

Life will go on even if we're the sole cause of GW and do nothing to stop it. It just won't be very conducive to our current modern society.

 

 

Also, the bolded reminded me of this Modest Mouse song:

 

"The universe works on a math equation

that never even ever really ends in the end

Infinity spirals out creation

We're on the tip of its tongue, and it is saying

We aint sure where you stand

You aint machines and you aint land

And the plants and the animals, they are linked

And the plants and the animals eat each other"

[Cknolls]

You're linking to a page dated October 2, 1997. How about some more recent data and analysis?

 

 

It was lost.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was lost.

Nicely played!