Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[August]

Originally Posted by Respenus

My apologies August. I meant how most Americans on this forums have been reacting to the whole climate change issue. While I admit I might had steeped over the line by using just one quote, yet I do have other things to do right now, so I haven't looked at every single sentence that has been written.

No apology is necessary. All i meant was you shouldn't assume we Americans think of you as a commie, regardless of your personal hygiene, just because you're from Slovenia.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

I guess this rule doesn't apply to Sailor Steve.

Yes, it does. And he does not report the same post 3 times in one day, either.

[magic452]

Neon Samurai That is just the kind of information I was looking for earlier, thanks for posting it. But I have a problem with it.

That graph still doesn't prove a thing. In the second paragraph it states:

The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation

What they are saying here is that they don't know and it's all an educated guess. And the post 1950 data may just show how wrong that guess was.

It's just as likely that the high CO2 is a result of global cooling, because of the shorter growing cycle of plants and trees. Also cooler oceans will also reduce the CO2 cycle as well. Less consumption of CO2 because of colder temps or more heating because of higher CO2. Take your pick.

Also if the data from 1950 on isn't collected by core samples but by modern interments, it can not be compared to the earlier data or it may show that the core sample data needs to be revised.

There are many good reasons to reduce our use of carbon based fuels but is GW one of them? The jury is still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned. There is just not enough good data to warrant spending trillions of dollars trying to fix something we may not be able to fix.

The Carbon taxes that are being purposed will put a heavy burden on many economies and could do a great deal of harm. The US, the EU and many other economies could handle the extra expense but less developed countries may not. More expensive everything will hurt the poor the most.

Just suppose that out current recession was a permanent situation, there would be far less aid and resources available to the poorer countries.

Before we spend that kind of money let's make sure we are spending it in the right places.

Magic

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yes, it does. And he does not report the same post 3 times in one day, either.

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.

Actually I've only ever reported one post, and it was a very long time ago, and it wasn't yours.

And if I remember correctly (which I might well not) it was a racist thing.

Yea well you said this.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I propose that this was an unwarranted attack, and further propose that you be censured.

If it wasn't you it was someone, and it resulted in an infraction.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by magic452

Neon Samurai That is just the kind of information I was looking for earlier, thanks for posting it. But I have a problem with it.

That graph still doesn't prove a thing. In the second paragraph it states:

What they are saying here is that they don't know and it's all an educated guess. And the post 1950 data may just show how wrong that guess was.

Not exactly. What they are saying is that the data gathering method is not precise enough to determine if greenhouse trace gases (GTG) bring about temperature increases, or temperature increases bring about more GTG, or both at the same time. They also say that they can't be sure by how much temperature increases have been caused by GTGs, due to other influencing factors. No guess work is involved here, they are only showing data. I would also refer you to the third paragraph.

Originally Posted by Ice Core Data

Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

It's just as likely that the high CO2 is a result of global cooling, because of the shorter growing cycle of plants and trees. Also cooler oceans will also reduce the CO2 cycle as well. Less consumption of CO2 because of colder temps or more heating because of higher CO2. Take your pick.

The data does not support your claim as there is a strong positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, they just cannot say exactly which came first is all, changes in temperature, or changes in CO2. However science has unequivocally demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it allows light energy to pass through it, but reflects radiant heat energy. The data also clearly shows low CO2 levels during major global cooling periods. Furthermore oceans tend to absorb more CO2 when cooler, and less when warmer (this is an simplification though).

I am actually more interested in the CO2 data then the temperature data, since the CO2 data is considered solid (where as the potential sources for temperature variation are multiple), and is more relevant to the current debate. However the correlation is very telling, even if we cannot determine which came first, if either did.

Also if the data from 1950 on isn't collected by core samples but by modern interments, it can not be compared to the earlier data or it may show that the core sample data needs to be revised.

I would have to dig into the reports to say if that is true. It should however be directly comparable as long as the direct samples are taken in the same region as the ice core samples. As the ice traps pockets of air, and that is what is measured in the core samples. Ice core samples however are not precise enough to be measured at a yearly rate of change.

There are many good reasons to reduce our use of carbon based fuels but is GW one of them? The jury is still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned. There is just not enough good data to warrant spending trillions of dollars trying to fix something we may not be able to fix.

The Carbon taxes that are being purposed will put a heavy burden on many economies and could do a great deal of harm. The US, the EU and many other economies could handle the extra expense but less developed countries may not. More expensive everything will hurt the poor the most.

Just suppose that out current recession was a permanent situation, there would be far less aid and resources available to the poorer countries.

Before we spend that kind of money let's make sure we are spending it in the right places.

Magic

Well we are potentially facing far worse harm, depending on what string of dominoes gets triggered by global warming (which most of the scientific community believes is happening). But I am not going to re-dredge up that stuff again (gone over that enough times in this thread). I am mainly more interested in presenting the data properly with as little bias as I can, and in dispelling as much of the false, or incorrect stuff I see in the thread.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

If it wasn't you it was someone, and it resulted in an infraction.

Your own actions resulted in an infraction being given, not someone reporting you. Reports at best simply notify us that there may be a problem, but its the moderator staff here that ultimately decide if censure is warranted or not. We also often act with out any reports being received as we patrol the threads. We don't give out infractions unless we think the situation warrants one, regardless of what some members may think.

Anyhow I would suggest you try to calm down a bit and not take things so personally, as your current path is bound to lead to no good for anyone.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

If it wasn't you it was someone, and it resulted in an infraction.

Some time ago I was asked to be a Moderator on the GT forum. I respectfully declined, because I get into a lot of the debates here, and I don't trust myself to be fair with that kind of authority. I may get a little outspoken, but no, I never push any buttons.

I don't have a lot of opinions on the big issues of our time. I'm more concerned with Logic, Argument and Debate. While I do voice some attitudes on subjects, I never pretend to know everything about anything. I'm actually more concerned with how people argue than with the arguments themselves - is the argument valid from the standpoint of reason? Is it consistent? I see no validity in lumping whole groups, races or nations together and insulting them. In political arguments I've objected to Conservatives calling all Liberals "idiots", and I've done the same from the other side. It simply serves no purpose, and it does nothing to advance the debate.

How about this: rather than wait until somebody faults you for something and then saying that others get away with blatant racism, the next time somebody says something you think is racist call them on it. You might find me backing you up. I also might disagree, but you can be sure that, right or wrong, I will be absolutely honest about it.

[magic452]

The data does not support your claim as there is a strong positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, they just cannot say exactly which came first is all, changes in temperature, or changes in CO2. However science has unequivocally demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it allows light energy to pass through it, but reflects radiant heat energy. The data also clearly shows low CO2 levels during major global cooling periods. Furthermore oceans tend to absorb more CO2 when cooler, and less when warmer (this is an simplification though).

If the temperature rise precedes the rise in CO2, than what is the relationship? Higher temps mean higher CO2 or Higher CO2 means higher temps. Is the dog wagging his tail or the tail wagging the dog?

The data shows large peaks and valleys. What is it that starts such extremes in temps and CO2 and what reverses these trends? It wasn't man in either case. Why is it that at peak temps it all of the sudden(or not so sudden) reversed and started cooling with the CO2 levels so high?

My biggest question is. The poles are a rather unique places on earth and not very representative of the earth in general. Is polar data really a reliable source of global climate, has this data been check by some other means, perhaps sea bed core samples?? I know that they can't go back that far but there should enough data to compare with recent ice samples.

And to the point of this thread has the data been presented in a full and truthful way? There has been some question about NASA objectivity in this area. I'm not too sure either way on this.

They wright off the European Warming period as just a localized event, why not polar ice samples the same way? Is this data reliable enough to take the steps that they are talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Core Data
Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

I can't get italic to turn off!!!!!!

The ultimate cause of temperature change is VERY important if your spending trillions to try to effect it. The question at hand isn't warming but what part man plays in itand what we can do about it?

Second if GTGs account for only half of temp change and man is responsible for only a part of these and we can only reduce a small fraction of our part just what can we accomplish with all the trillions of dollars they plan to spend?

Neon you present a good case and I appreciate it, you bring out the facts as you see them. Thank you.

Magic

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.

Nobody gets special treatment here, but if a member behaves like an ass with a chip on his shoulder then that's exactly how he'll be treated.

For that special someone

[AVGWarhawk]

And for that special Tribesman in you group:

And that is taking the piss in what way exactly?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

That's because he doesn't have to, he only has to report a post once. You see he gets special treatment here at SS Radioroom.

That's your opinion. Can we get back on topic, whatever it was...