Climategate 2.0

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by PopeyesPappy

we have a pretty good understanding of the different forcings that drive the oscillations on your chart.

Not really.

[SR71]

Which forcings do you find particularly mysterious Jerome?

[SR71]

Daily Mail says we're in for an ice age! lol. Svensmark again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-again.html

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

Here is an early rebuttal to part of the Mail's assertions. It addresses some of the very obvious nonsense. I have no idea about the validity of the Mail's claims to significantly diminished insolation in the future, however. It would have to be sizable to negate the GHG effect, I would imagine.

Fake Predictions for Fake Skeptics | Open Mind

[Doctor X]

Denmark has a Space Institute?

--J.D.

[SR71]

Yes. You will be receiving an offer of employment...

[Doctor X]

Do I get a Danish Secretary?

--J.D.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Do I get a Danish Secretary?

--J.D.

I'll wager some of these Danes are looking for work...

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Do I get a Danish Secretary?

--J.D.

Will you settle for one of the these?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Denmark has a Space Institute?

--J.D.

Only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

The other two days of the week, that space is rented by Muhamet's Kebab and Falafel Emporium.

[SR71]

German author declares AGW a fraud!

(AGW geeks only)

The bunk: A Top German Environmentalist Cools On Global Warming - Forbes

The debunk: Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

[Watser?]

Yes, hello?!

An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self "Heartland Insider" has released the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.

It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and "other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies." Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

Richard Littlemore | Heartland Insider Exposes Institute's Budget and Strategy

[SR71]

Is it OK to copy pasta from another forum so everybody can lol at it?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by F X

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
Info

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.

Mixed Messages

But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn't getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured?

Originally Posted by F X

There's a shit ton of content in there.

Something that stands out to me, is that the arctic can be melting, while other areas are cooling, leading to a zero increase in the global temperature.

Leaving aside that means CO2 can't be the driving force (warming, only warming from CO2), it still means some serious change in climates.

Not global warming, at present, but that doesn't mean everything is just peachy keen fine.

Originally Posted by F X

Climate Change: UN Extreme Weather Report*Triggers*Storm of Protest - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

One thing is certain: The IPCC's climatologists aren't offering politicians any simple truths to work with. Indeed, it might sound logical enough to assume that more heat means more water evaporating and thus more rain, but this assumption unfortunately bears no relation to real-life weather patterns. Temperatures have risen just under 1 degree Celsius over the last century, but "our measurements show no increase in precipitation," says Andreas Becker, the director of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC), operated by the German National Meteorological Service (DWD), based in Offenbach, near Frankfurt.

When asked whether this means that the IPCC climatologists have made a mistake in their measurements or whether their equations are wrong, Becker admits that it's "a major conundrum" for researchers.

Indeed, the new IPCC report has triggered sharp attacks from some climate activists for the way in which it underlines the very uncertainty of its predictions. For example, Climate Progress, a blog of the US-based think tank Think Progress, has criticized the report as being "watered down" and representing yet "another blown chance to explain the catastrophes coming if we keep doing nothing."

Fear of Exaggerating the Threats

Pielke, whose work has focused on the intersection between science and policy, sees the matter precisely the other way around and warns against allowing science to be roped into the service of climate-related politics. "The world is getting warmer, and we urgently need to do something about it," he says. "But we shouldn't use natural disasters as our argument for doing so." As an expert on such disasters, Pielke considers it a mistake to have released the report on the eve of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which kicks off in Durban, South Africa, on Nov. 28. As he sees it, doing so "gives off the impression that we're trying to say something political."

All this leaves those hoping to save the climate facing a dilemma. On the one hand, there is a decreasing level of interest in the issue of climate change. Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), particularly blames the financial crisis for this decrease. "The financial crisis forces the political actors to take an unhealthy short-term view," he told SPIEGEL in a recent interview.

On the other hand, researchers such as Pielke fear that exaggerating the threats posed could backfire. "In doing so," he warns, "we risk losing our credibility." But that still leaves one question unanswered: How much uncertainty can his field afford to express before the public and politicians turn away?

Originally Posted by F X

The record cold of late is another conundrum. No climate models predict extremely cold winters. More snow, maybe, but not extreme and lasting cold. That does NOT fit with climate models.

No matter how much, after the fact, climate alarmists are now saying they predicted this.

Originally Posted by F X

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008, Kaufmann et al, PNAS (2011).

Originally Posted by F X

It's not hard to understand. Science is self correcting.

Which means when things don't work out the way you predict, you change things.

First it was there WAS warming for the last 14 years.

Then when there was record cold that was due to the warming.

Then when it becomes obvious that is nonsense, then there hasn't been any warming. But it's still warming, you just can't tell because of pollution that causes cooling.

This may actually be true. Certainly the arctic is still warming.

What irks me is when idiots like voxrat repeat the party line, and then the party changes the tune, and he doesn't know it, he keeps dancing around the problems with current science, and calling anyone who disagrees with him a denier or something.

At no point int time is there any humility, or an honest debate.

Originally Posted by F X

Haha
Science debate? Or political issue? - Page 2 - TalkRational

...

[SR71]

[quote=JEROME DA GNOME;1038370]

Originally Posted by F X

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.
Info

Oh look, Jerome, it's been getting colder the whole time since 1973.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[SR71]

That's why they call you Doctor X? Kind of like a Zoro thing, only different letter, and not teh ghey messiah.

[Doctor X]

I am a RIVER to my people.

--J.D.

[Jerome]

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

[Doctor X]

"A dream . . . to some. . . .

A NIGHTMARE to Cunts!!"

--J.D.

[PopeyesPappy]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

Do you have a link for this weeks old claim about a 3 year old temperature trend Jerome?

[Watser?]

Of course Jerome da Lame Troll has totally ignored the other thread with REAL examples about how corporations are REALLY trying to manipulate the debate on AGW.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by PopeyesPappy

Do you have a link for this weeks old claim about a 3 year old temperature trend Jerome?

It's from his wall of quotes post above, the source is Der Spiegel, which doesn't give it's own source for this "British experts say" bit.

Anyway, it seems to be wrong that the trend disappears after accounting for ENSO. Kinda the opposite, actually.

[Jerome]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/....pdf?mobile=nc

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with
observed temperature 1998–2008

Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Manna, and James H. Stockc

aDepartment of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457),
Boston, MA 02215; bDepartment of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and cDepartment of Economics,
Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011)


Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising
greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global
surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find
that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase
in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar
insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical
change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of
anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur
emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent
with the existing understanding of the relationship among
global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative
forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known
warming and cooling effects.

[Jerome]

[SR71]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Did you not read fragment's post, or is it a comprehension problem?