Warning: require() [function.require]: Unable to allocate memory for pool. in /usr/www/users/triplepundit/triple/index.php on line 17

Warning: require_once() [function.require-once]: Unable to allocate memory for pool. in /usr/www/users/triplepundit/triple/wp-blog-header.php on line 12

Warning: require_once() [function.require-once]: Unable to allocate memory for pool. in /usr/www/users/triplepundit/triple/wp-load.php on line 29
Climategate: Science Committee Says it's Nothing But Hot Air
« Back to Home Page

Climategate: Science Committee Says it’s Nothing But Hot Air

RP Siegel | Wednesday April 14th, 2010 | 17 Comments

A week before last Thanksgiving, a news story broke about a large number of emails that had been hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), one of the leading climatology research groups responsible for advancing the theory of man-made global warming and providing data to support that theory. The hacked emails were presented in a way that suggested scientists had deliberately falsified data to build the case for global warming. Climate change deniers came out in force claiming that the stolen emails offered proof of a deliberate fraud. Some even went as far as to suggest that the entire findings of the IPCC should be overturned. Saudi climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban said, “It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change.”

Snippets taken out of context certainly did give that impression, even to those who did not want it to be true.

However, in a 63-page, March 31st ruling, the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons concluded, “We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus.”

There was surprisingly little coverage of the exoneration in the mainstream media, especially when compared to the frenzy over the original allegations.

The emails had been taken out of context and pieced together as one might a jig-saw puzzle to reveal a picture of corrupt, ideologically-driven scientists tampering with data to make it more conveniently fit the story of The Inconvenient Truth, which links human activities with the onset of a catastrophic shift of our planetary climate system.

For example, one email from CRU director Phil Jones, who had temporarily stepped aside while the investigation of the matter was underway, read,  “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” This certainly could be construed to be an attempt to hide an “inconvenient” actual decline in temperature during a time when the models that climatologists were using to advance their theory claimed that it should have been rising.

This however, is simply not the case. Anyone who had taken the time to actually read these emails in their entirety, would have discovered that, in context, the remark refers specifically to certain tree ring data, that appeared to decline when other far more reliable data (such as from thermometers) were showing an increase.  Tree ring data is of the many proxy sources the scientists use to construct temperature records when other data is not available. “Mike” in the note refers to Michael Mann, the lead author of a study published in Nature entitled Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), which explained the divergence between the tree ring data and existing temperature records.

Which is why the  investigating committee reported, “Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

The timing of the leaks was effective, as it was no doubt intended, in taking much wind out of the sails of the US delegation that was about to take off for Copenhagen, hoping to do something about the climate problem. I think we all know what happened there. Apparently, the impression still lingers. According to a recent Gallup Poll 48 percent of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated. This is up from 31 percent in 2006.

The problem was that few, if any, people actually bothered to read through all 60 MB of data comprising well over 1000 emails spanning a period of thirteen years. Those who had, like Peter Spotts of the Christian Science Monitor, seem to agree that, ““Nothing in the package appears to overturn the general idea—arrived at via many lines of evidence—that the CO2 humans have been pumping into the atmosphere is warming the planet, nor does anything bolster the notion some put forward of a hoax on the part of climate scientists.”

Others, like Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May, found the reading fascinating, painting a picture of the scientists that, while not always saint-like in their remarks about their adversaries, are hardworking, dedicated and sympathetic given the fierce politically-motivated opposition they face on a daily basis. “The enormous volume of emails give a picture of thoroughly decent scientists increasingly finding themselves in a nightmare. One refers to the atmosphere moving to something akin to that created by Joseph R. McCarthy.  Their professional reputations are suddenly at risk.  They write each other in disbelief, protesting “I have never been political. I am an honest scientist.”  They are threatened, and “sting” operation FOI (freedom of information act) requests are set up to ensnare them and keep them from doing their work.”

Another, perhaps more skeptical source, factcheck.org said, “It’s clear from the e-mails that there are people with whom the scientists would rather not share. What’s less clear is whether any deliberate obstruction actually occurred—that’s one of the subjects of the East Anglia investigation.”

The investigation concluded that, “The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.”

The Pew Center on Climate Change lists 39 renowned agencies, ranging from the World Meteorological Association  to the American Medical Association that have re-affirmed their support of the IPCC findings “that global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries….”

And White House science adviser John Holdren said, at a recent congressional hearing on the subject, “”However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it.”

Meanwhile, the hacker who exposed the scientists’ emails remains at large.

RP Siegel is the Executive Director of Cool Rochester and co-author of Vapor Trails.


▼▼▼      17 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • mememine

    EnviornMENTAL parishioners are now proclaiming that when millions of giant 480 foot wind turbines all start turning at the same time, it could and might and potentially and possibly will change the “natural” rotation of the planet causing disco to come back in big way. Apparently consensus is 100% in agreement that this crisis may potentially really happen, and could get even worse. Everyone is being encouraged to erase and or destroy any existing disco music, especially vinyl. Mandatory earplugs and a ban on white bell bottomed polyester pants are being debated by a body of media-fed, un-elected representatives of countless thousands and thousands of fictitious lab coat consultants (formerly known as scientists) to sit down at a meeting in Motown and agree with each other. Film at eleven.

  • c02Pirate

    This is probably one of the worst commentaries I've seen concerning the climategate fiasco.

    Although the media (not any major outlet) jumped on the terminology of the “trick” used to hide the decline this was not the issue scientists have. The issue is that scientists involved cannot explain why the reconstructed temperature data shows this decline. The problem is thus that without any explanation of the decline the data is thus falsified and scientifically worthless. There is no way to decipher if the all the data doesn't suffer from the same issues and should now be regarded at a least as unreliable.

    You state the in the article that “Tree ring data is of the many proxy sources the scientists use to construct temperature records” – well not these scientists. All data previous to modern thermometer reading were based on only a selected few trees from a specific area.

    I should also remind you and your readers of the fact that the raw data the CRU used to completely eliminated the well established medieval warm period and the little ice age has been lost, or destroyed, or deleted, or the dog ate it – what ever the reason the data is gone. This completely eliminates any possibility of reconstructing or reproducing their results.
    This is very important because thei is what science – real science – is all about.
    Because this data has mysteriously disappeared – it now for all legal and scientific reasons does not exist. Without replication, verification of the results can not be performed – thus scientifically it must be regarded as non existent.
    The ramification of this are HUGE – this also means that any other data based on the CRU's reconstructed data, papers, models etc.. are also invalidated and no longer exist.

    Attempting to draw attention to the “trick” terminology is quite simply dishonest.

    But then we turn to their methods of data analysis and code. It is quite clear in the code that fudge factors and predetermined values were used to enhance and produce warming where none existed in the data. This is not something that can in any way be taken out of context – it there in black and white in code.
    Once again the fact that data was purposefully manipulated is a case of fraud.

    Then of course there is the many attempts to pervert the peer review process – although I understand their reasons for not wanting to see there work discredited – this is not how science works and is not how scientists hold their credibility. Then of course the is the fact that these guys all reviewed each others work – this is far from independent review and is again a clear violation and perversion of the peer review process it is also totally immoral.

    Then we have the total disregard for FIO laws – but once again they have been let off very very lightly indeed. The gov claims that the time limit for prosecuting these offenses has elapsed. This is simply not true and is yet another LIE. The law states that action/prosecution must take place within 6 months of detecting the offense. Seeing that the offense was only detected in November of 2009 it would still be lawful to begin proceedings well into May 2010.
    But the Gov has misrepresent this law and spun it to mean something entirely different.
    The gov now claims that the time limit starts when the offense was first committed – which of course is just ridiculous. The CRU had been stalling and denying these claims for years – yet the Gov didn't take action then either. This is simply straight flat out LIE – there is absolutely NO reason these guy should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law – PERIOD.

    There are many many scientists that are furious about what these guys did – many want to see them sacked, fined and banned from ever holding a position of trust within a scientific institute ever again.

    I suggest anyone without any doubt that the CRU guys shouldn't be tried for fraud and deception – to read the emails for them self's. Only then will those who believe that they did no wrong will realize that crimes were committed against science, humanity and LAW to which they MUST be held accountable.

  • RP Siegel

    I'm sure sure what your politics are CO2 Pirate, but from your attacking style I can probably guess. “Worst commentary” meaning the one you disagree with most. You make a lot of unsubstantiated accusations, trying with great vigor to keep fanning the flames of doubt that this little orchestrated hoopla had momentarily provided. The data is in. The fire is out. I have provided a link to entire ruling by the Science & Technology Committee of the House of Commons, which explains in great detail their reasons for exonerating Jones and his colleagues.You and your fellow “skeptics” can keep sifting through the ashes, trying to call attention to tiny bits and pieces of discrepancy, hoping to draw attention away from the indisputable fact that the science beyond global warming has not been undermined by this little flap. This is the reason I wrote this article because I want everyone to understand that.Global warming has begun, it was most likely caused by man and it will be unstoppable for centuries. And the sooner obstructionists like yourself get out of the way, the sooner we can move forward with the crucial business of trying to minimize the impact of this cataclysm on everyone, including yourself and your descendants, the better.

    • c02Pirate

      Mr Siegel.

      Though you and others have constantly attempted to play climategate down and pretend that it didn't exist – make no mistake this is far from over.
      If you think that honest scientists from around the world will enjoy being painted with the same tainted brush as these charlatans and crooks then you are very mistaken.

      Everything stated in my previous post is 100% correct, factual and totally verifiable. I have absolutely no need or reason to lie or embellish anything.

      The public is being lied to and mislead by very dishonest, misleading and completely bias reporting like your article. This is NOT journalism – this personal opinion and your article is nothing more than a propaganda piece. You have even fabricated facts and lied in print in order to make it sound more factual when in fact you simply LIED.

      Your response to my post is very typical – as always there is point blank refusal discuss the substance of the issue because you know full well that there can be no defense based on facts and evidence. So rather than discuss your lies and misrepresentation you attack the person – very typical adhominem.

      Ok – so now that we have established your complete lack of journalistic integrity and honesty and personal bias – lets get back to this white wash of an inquiry.

      Lets just see if there was any bias there among the members.
      Of particular interest is the chair of the inquiry – Lord Oxburgh obviously chosen for his total impartiality and because he has no interests in AGW, renewables or carbon industries right? – WRONG

      FYI – Lord Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a European leader with major windfarms in the UK, France, Spain and Italy, and he’s chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1-trillion industry by 2050.
      This is a guy who is heavily invested in the industry of C02 and renewable energies. No conflict of interest there right?
      And just to make the bias even worse – Oxburgh hand picked all members.

      This is tantamount to allowing the chairman of Phillip Morris tobacco chair an inquiry into the risks of smoking – it is laughable. It shows a total disrespect of the public's intelligence.

      Yet – some people – you included – think the inquiries report was honest, unbiased and accurate?
      Honest, unbiased and accurate is NOT what was wanted- the dice were loaded from the very start and now everyone knows it.

      If the world ignores all the science, evidence, history, observations and common sense and forges down a road to energy restrictions etc… and lets face it – if this happens then the effects on humanity will huge and the ultimate result will be depopulation.
      You will be able proclaim to your grandchildren that the reason they cannot enjoy all the freedoms and benefits of cheap energy provided by fossil fuels that YOU enjoyed is because you 'believed' in a false ideology based on lies and deception. You will be able joy at the fact that your grandchildren will have much less of everything but mainly health, food, clean water, career opportunities, family – you name it they will have much less than you or I enjoyed – you will also have denied them a long prosperous and free life.
      However I would like to leave my kids a better world – one with more freedom, more choice, the best health care, opportunities, wealth etc… and a long, prosperous and free life.

      Sir you are a disgrace to all honest journalists and scientists the world over and will be looked on by your grandchildren as a traitor and hater of your own race.

      Good Bye.

  • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/ Nick Palmer

    I am getting sick and tired of brain-dead breathtakingly stupid people like c02Pirate.

    This denialist drone wrote “should also remind you and your readers of the fact that the raw data the CRU used to completely eliminated the well established medieval warm period and the little ice age has been lost, or destroyed, or deleted, or the dog ate it – what ever the reason the data is gone. This completely eliminates any possibility of reconstructing or reproducing their results.”

    If you 're going to lie then the propaganda textbooks say to make it a big one and c02Pirate duly obliges with a slice of of such amazing mendacity and fantasy that a normal person wouldn't believe that it could be so astonishingly made up.

    Mindlessly regurgitating the nakedly biased and deliberately misleading garbage that the denialosphere is churning out in ever more fantastic distortions of reality, c02Pirate ignores the fact that his/her “side” has manufactured about 110 different, and frequently mutually contradictory reasons, why they shouldn't accept the simple basic well known physics of CO2, which have been known for well over a hundred years. Why are you so prone, c02Pirate, to believe any old garbage that someone chooses to fool you with instead of the simple measured truth that CO2 is warming the plant and we are responsible for increasing the CO2?

    Even darling-of-the-deniers Richard Lindzen confirms that increased CO2 is already warming, and will continue to warm, the planet so I don't see how the denialist cretins have the colossally ignorant nerve to carry on with their misdirection, black propaganda and naked idiocy. These deniers have all the mental capacity of some internet troll who notices the mole on Cindy Crawford's face and screams out in a display of catastrophically unjustified hubris that she is UGLY – and her mother – and all her ancestors too. A view so pathological and narcissistic, so egotistically gross, that one wishes someone was standing by to give them the hard slap in the face they so desperately need. Cindy Crawford and global warming science continue to be beautiful pieces of work

    c02Pirate went on to spout:

    “The CRU had been stalling and denying these claims for years – yet the Gov didn't take action then either. This is simply straight flat out LIE – there is absolutely NO reason these guy should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law – PERIOD.

    How does he/she have the nerve to parrot this mind boggling crap? Simple-minded, stubborn, grossly stupid, ignorant, gullible and willing to believe any prejudiced and deceitful garbage that fits with their tiny minded, pathological, B.S. blinkered view of reality, one must surely begin to re-evaluate whether allowing toxic liars like this the free speech to, whether they realise what it actually is or not, spew their feather brained repetitive mindless stuff to the wider world really is what free speech was designed for?

    It was surely conceived to make sure that those who spoke truth and rationality could not be crushed by those who lied and misled and deceived. Nowadays it is being used by the stupid, the malicious and the functionally evil, to obfuscate the truth and muddy the waters.

    Nowadays, unfortunately, we seem to have the bizarre situation where people seem to think that anyone's views or beliefs are of equal value to someone else's, regardless of the intellectual content or the justification and “fact checking” that reality bestows. We literally seem to have arrived at a situation where people seem to think that whatever they want to believe in has some sort of validity and they believe this so strongly that even if somebody knowledgeable destroys their argument by shooting their beliefs full of holes – as the denialist propaganda against global warming science has been thousands of times in the past – they come out the other side with their ludicrous beliefs untouched.

    It's time to stop the dangerously stupid from polluting the science with their half baked objections and rhetoric

  • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/ Nick Palmer

    Sorry about the tone of my first comment but something snapped! I could edit it to soften it up but I'm going to leave it as is.

    I wasn't just coming down individually on c02Pirate like a ton of bricks but metaphorically on all the hordes of similar people who have severely misplaced confidence in their ability to judge the rights and wrongs of a situation and the credibility of their sources.

    • c02Pirate

      Nick.

      Everything I've stated is factual and fully verifiable – check and verify my statements.
      Do your research and find the facts for yourself.

      Contrary to your ranting, raving and name calling in typical ad homien attacks – I would have preferred a more intelligent response with some substance – but unfortunately it seems you lack these qualities.
      Though I don't blame you – rather I blame the constant propaganda, misrepresentations, hype and straight out LIES that you and millions of others are constantly bombarded with (like this article).
      You will see on my first post that I stated Mr RP Siegel flat out LIED in this article. In his response he DID NOT deny this – rather he attacked me again in a typical ad hominen response. Yet he could not deny it because he knows full well that he LIED.

      Nick – I bear you no malaise or bad will – I ask only that you open your eyes and listen to the science and physics of the world around you.
      AGW is NOT supported by science – although I'm sure you will disagree but there is a good reason why it is not. Science is based on what is known to be true and what has been proven by the scientific method, rigorous testing for validation, verification and replication. Without these corner stones of science, science would be but a shot in the dark.
      Having said that – to this day there is not one piece of evidence to suggest the AGW is to blame for any warming either in the current or last century. All warming has fallen well within natural variances and known, well established and accepted natural warming.
      It is a given that global warming exists – it must – just as global cooling exists. We know this, it is well established and accepted. We also know that from 1850 to the present, warming has been around ~0.5degC per century (+-0.2) and sea levels have been rising steadily at around ~15cm per century.
      Again this is well known, well-established and accepted fact (check the scientific literature). However this temp and sea level rise has seen no substantial change from what is considered normal – it is well within the normal and natural variance.

      In the last century we have seen many short term natural climatic changes superimposed on top of the underlying natural warming.
      1850 – 1880 – warming
      1880 – 1910 – cooling
      1910 – 1940 – warming (hottest year ever recorded 1934)
      1940 – 1970 – cooling (New ice age scare)
      1970 – 2001 – warming (current warming scare)
      2001 – 2010 – cooling (around the same temps as in 1900 and 1970's)

      The current cooling trend (if history is any guide) is expected to last until at around 2030. But this is something no one really knows for sure – only time will tell.
      Also keep in mind that although the above short trends are global averages – the split between the hemispheres shows the warming is definitely NOT global. It can be seen in the record for the period between 1900 to 2000 that the northern hemisphere was responsible for most of the warming while the southern hardly warmed at all (again check the facts).
      The best, most reliable, and most accurate way to the measure the lower troposphere (lowest part of the atmosphere) is via satellite.In fact the current global average is at around 1900 figures.
      Again DON'T trust me on it – check the data.

      Of course I know your gonna rant and rave about 2009 being one of the warmest this century etc… But what you must realize is that this is simply impossible as the warm biasing that has been systematically introduced to surface weather stations is undeniable.
      Apart from the completely ludicrous sites of recording station – NASA GISS has now reduced the number of reporting stations from 6,000 to just 1500. All the remaining stations were specifically chosen in order to give the appearance more warming. Once again I suggest you check this – do not take my word for it. This information is freely available for anyone who wants to check – check it and confirm it for your self.

      In reply to your rant…
      1. The CRU has publicly stated that they no longer have the raw data used to re-construct temp. This means replication and verification of their results is now IMPOSSIBLE. This is NOT me saying this – it is Phill Jones. If you disagree – then I suggest you either take it up with him – of give him a call and tell him where the data is. Because apparently they have no idea.
      Replication and verification is how science works, this how science separates charlatans and hoaxers from real science and fact – replication, verification, repeatable testing etc…
      However the loss of the raw data has huge repercussions. Because the CRU data cannot be verified etc… It now in all scientific and legal terms can longer be considered to exist. This also extends to all papers, reports, etc.. that used the data.
      So you see – in scientific terms it really is a big deal.

      Again this all fact – check and double check my statements.

      2. You then went on to completely ignore all science and evidence concerning the MWP.
      In fact only a few days ago more evidence turned up in Indonesia of both the MWP and LIA. Though I'm sure you will ignore this also. Evidence as far as the U.S has been uncovered (can't remember the exact details on that one). But in any case we KNOW a great deal about the MWP and LIA and yes it seems it was indeed global – the evidence on this is simply overwhelming.

      3. You then started ranting about deniers this and deniers that and that C02 warming has been known for over 100 yeas which is sort of correct. However it is a huge leap from a (test tube / locked chamber experiment) to a dynamic atmosphere like ours. You then reference a global warming activists site which I might has one of the biggest
      collections of total junk science I've ever seen. If you want credibility – directing people to AGW activist sites like that is no way to get it. This shows your complete ignorance of science and the real world. Where I would have directed you to a credible paper or scientific site.

      However you mention basic physics. I would suggest you do a little research in this area as both basic physics and thermodynamic laws refute the AGW hypothesis in its entirety.

      C02 PHYSICS 101…
      C02 like ALL gases has a very logarithmic Global Warming Potential GWP. This means that for every ppm added less warming is realized than the last ppm added (see beer's law). Thus a doubling of C02 levels cannot double the warming. Again this is very basic physics.
      This means that C02 levels MUST increase approx exponentially in order to achieve the same temp rise as the previous one. Also almost 50% of C02's TOTAL GWP is realized at just 20ppm where after it quickly levels off.
      Example: if 50ppm gives a raise of 0.2degC then to get another 0.2degC the C02 level must doubled to 100ppm. Thus using this example to get a 3degC rise the C02 level must rise to 1500ppm – to get 3.2degC, C02 must double again to 3000ppm.
      NOTE: These levels are for purposes of example ONLY and in no way represent real world figures. Real figures for warming produced by 50ppm would not be any where near 0.2degC – in fact it would totally undetectable.

      FYI: AGW is an hypothesis (a guess). It has been an hypothesis for well over 100yrs adn for good reason. In order to become a full blown theory an hypothesis must tested using the scientific method. To this day all attempts to validate the AGW hypothesis have failed. It cannot be validated because the evidence simply does not support it. A short 25-30yrs correlation does not equate to causation.

      4. You then go on to slander Dr Richard Lindzen. Again this shows your complete lack of knowledge concerning the science on this issue.
      Dr Richard Lindzen just recently released a paper that shows by direct measurement of incoming and out going radiation that C02 is NOT absorbing more IR radiation today than compared with 20 years ago. I would suggest you read the paper – it is very interesting.
      I find it very hard to believe that a scientist like Lindzen would make such a statement knowing that his research conclusions completely contradict it . In fact I'd say you just made that up – shame on you.

      I will ignore the hysterical rantings and name calling etc. of the next 2 paragraphs

      5. You then rant and rave about my statements concerning the total lack of the CRU to comply with FIO laws. CRU deliberately flouted FOI laws. Unfortunately the gov has been unwilling to pursue, investigate or enforce the law concerning this issue. You can check the British FOI laws for your self – it is clear as day that they broke the law – PERIOD.

      Nick – it is clear you have an emotional investment with this issue which prevents you from making reasonable or logic based judgments. Science can only consider credible, verifiable evidence.
      You seem to one of those people that say things like “no matter what the evidence AGW is real” etc.. Fortunately science does not depend on emotion.

      A short word on C02 and numbers.
      Total C02 levels at this time are ~380ppm. Of this ~380ppm 96% is of natural origin. Less then 4% is considered anthropogenic (in fact the real number is ~3.8%). Putting water vapor aside for a moment – the infinitesimally small contribution of human C02 to the over whelming natural sources of C02 cannot account for the warming seen in the period between 1970's to 2000. This period is also the only period in which C02 and temp have had any correlation. Adding water vapor to the equation makes the human contribution to the C02 pool completely insignificant.

      If you do the math – the TOTAL human contribution to warming is an insignificant 0.2degC MAXIMUM.
      And I haven't even mentioned how the AGW hypothesis violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics yet – I'll leave that for another time.

      Also consider this simple fact – since the end of the LIA in 1850 the planet has been warming at around ~0.5degC +- 0.2 per century and sea level rises of around ~15cm per century. Do you know what has changed since then? – Absolutely nothing.
      Neither the amount if warming nor the rate of warming, nor glacial melt rates or any other measure has shown any increased rate. Again don't believe me – check for your self.

      A Word on Ocean Acidification.
      This shows the totally ridiculous NONSENSE that is promoted as science.
      Firstly – just the name should ring alarm bells. Anyone with even a little knowledge about the chemical makeup of the oceans knows that the term “Ocean Acidification” is for effect and scare purposes only. It is totally misleading and scientifically incorrect.

      Please consider this – the oceans breath C02. In warmer climates C02 is released, in colder climate is absorbed. Once again this is well establish and understood physics (check it anyway). The problem with this hypothesis is that if “Ocean Acidification” is true then it completely falsifies the AGW hypothesis.
      The simply FACT is – it is temperature that dictates the uptake of C02.
      You cannot have a warming ocean that absorbs C02 – it is physically IMPOSSIBLE.
      The two hypotheses are completely and totally diametrically opposed.

      If you are serious about this issue and really want to know the truth – then I suggest you
      research the science and the science only. Stay away from any web sites that promote either side – only consider the science and evidence. Also be aware of models – models are not science and are not evidence. All models to this day have been shown completely and totally wrong – and not just a bit.

      Be skeptical of everything – and check everything.

      • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/ Nick Palmer

        Read what Lindzen says:

        http://www.independent.org/publications/article

        He agrees that we have increased CO2 levels; that increased CO2 has contributed to warming and also that further increases will lead to more warming. He just doesn't think that the feedbacks will be dangerously positive. He is one of very few credible climate scientists who hold this maverick view. Do you want to gamble our future that he's right and all the rest are wrong?

        There are far too many logical errors and misleading statements in your post to answer so I will just take on one. Rest assured that everything else you write can be demolished as easily.

        you wrote (shortened):

        A Word on Ocean Acidification.
        “The simply FACT is – it is temperature that dictates the uptake of C02.
        You cannot have a warming ocean that absorbs C02 – it is physically IMPOSSIBLE.
        The two hypotheses are completely and totally diametrically opposed.”

        You clearly demonstrate your ignorance and your desire to believe any old garbage that appears to support your preconceptions. CO2 uptake in the oceans is primarily driven by TWO things 1) Temperature of the water. Warmer water holds less CO2 ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. 2) Concentration (or partial pressure of CO2) in the atmosphere. If the partial pressure is increasing (as it is) sea water can absorb greater quantities of CO2 than the amount it outgases due to the temperature rise. It not only can but it already has in the past, which lead to a mass extinction of species. Clearly you see nothing wrong in risking our civilisation based on your own deeply flawed wacky ideas – or rather, more likely, regurgitated simplistic propaganda that you picked up from selectively misquoted papers, denialist websites and books.

        Oh, the following 5 scientific papers about direct satellite and ground based measurement of increased greenhouse effect due to CO2, just about destroys the vast majority of the denialist propaganda blitz by showing that the increased greenhouse effect due to our emissions has been definitively measured.

        W.F.J. Evans (2006)
        R. Philipona, B. Durr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura and M. Wild (2004)
        K. Wang and S. Liang (2009)
        C. Chen, J. Harries, H. Brindley, M. Ringer (2007)
        J. A. Griggs and J. E. Harries (2004)

        It's happening. We're mostly responsible. Even if we stopped now it would continue for many decades. It won't be pretty.

        • c02Pirate

          Nick,

          Firstly I would suggest you try actually reading the article you provided a link to.
          No where in that article did Lindzen's statements contradict his own work.
          I would also remind you that the article is 5 yrs old which is a long time in this field.
          In his summary states and I quote:

          “I want to emphasize that the basic agreement frequently described as representing a global warming ‘consensus’ is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem. Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than found in computer models whose sensitivity depend on processes which are clearly misrepresented. Attempts to assess climate sensitivity by direct observation of cloud processes, and other means, point to a conclusion that doubling CO2 would lead to about 0.5C warming or less.”

          I find it very interesting that in this article he proposes an hypothesis about the climate sensitivity – then 4 years later (when enough data has been gathered) he tests and verifies the hypothesis via direct measurement in his most recent paper Lindzen and Choi 2009 – I suggest you read it. Lindzen sat on the data until 20yrs of it was gathered – obviously he rushes into nothing and is a very patient and man. The paper proves by empirical measurements that the rise in C02 over the last 20 years has NOT effected the radiation budget at all.

          I also notice in the link you provided that he also backs many of the statements I had made in my previous response – basic science and physics.

          Now to your assumptions about Ocean Acidification.
          The C02 partial pressure to which you refer (pC02) is DIRECTLY proportional to C02 concentrations.
          Thus again – if atmospheric C02 warms the surface/oceans as the AGW hypothesis proposes then the oceans abillity to absorb C02 will diminish. Thus the result at best (assuming the 2 hypothesis are correct) would be no change.
          Oceanic out gassing of C02 is well know, well establish, accepted scientific fact – check out the Vostok ice core data for some excellent examples of how temperature effects oceanic C02 out gassing.

          As I have said you cannot have a warming ocean AND acidification – it is physically impossible – PERIOD.

          You have no understanding of the science or physics involved.

          Rather than researching for propaganda and junk science to support your position – research the science and data first – then form an opinion.

          Do your research into the science – NOT the propaganda and lies constantly thrown around by global warming alarmists.

          Question everything….

  • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/ Nick Palmer

    c02 Pirate wrote:

    Lindzen and Choi 2009 – I suggest you read it. Lindzen sat on the data until 20yrs of it was gathered – obviously he rushes into nothing and is a very patient and man. The paper proves by empirical measurements that the rise in C02 over the last 20 years has NOT effected the radiation budget at all.

    No it doesn't! This paper has been comprehensively criticised. Laughably (on Wattsupwiththat), Dr Roy Spencer, who is one of the very few credible climate scientists that are quoted by denialists to back themselves up, had this to say about L&C 2009. Here is the “bottom line” of his post:

    “WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

    It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I’ve been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished) of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.

    Of course, since the above analysis is not peer-reviewed and published, it might be worth no more than what you paid for it. But I predict that Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors’ conclusions.

    In any event, I don’t think the question of exactly what feedbacks are exhibited by the ERBE satellite is anywhere close to being settled.”

    c02Pirate quoted Lindzen:

    “I want to emphasize that the basic agreement frequently described as representing a global warming ‘consensus’ is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem. Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than found in computer models whose sensitivity depend on processes which are clearly misrepresented.

    He's talking about his own “results/observations” here!! – which are contradicted by just about everyone else's. Bear in mind that results from paleo-climatology reconstructions of past climate change just make no sense at all if climate sensitivity is as low as Lindzen claims. We would never have got out of ice ages! Paleo-climatological considerations invalidate Lindzen's hypothesis. He is an atmospheric physicist, not a paleo-climatologist, so perhaps he has a big blind spot in this area towards results and implications from a field he is not familiar with.

    Re the computer models, you ought to know that Lindzen and Choi themselves used 11 to model the radiative forcings but only two of their selected models included the effects of Mount Pinatubo (1991) – all but 2 model simulations examined by L&C omit such forcings entirely. Why do you think that was?

    They also rather arbitrarily select their high and low temperature points, over a period of 15 years. Apparently, if you change the selected dates by a month or less then the effect they claim to see disappears entirely although my statistical analysis ability (not to mention my available time) is not up to proving this.

    C02Pirate wrote:

    Now to your assumptions about Ocean Acidification.
    The C02 partial pressure to which you refer (pC02) is DIRECTLY proportional to C02 concentrations.
    Thus again – if atmospheric C02 warms the surface/oceans as the AGW hypothesis proposes then the oceans abillity to absorb C02 will diminish. Thus the result at best (assuming the 2 hypothesis are correct) would be no change… As I have said you cannot have a warming ocean AND acidification – it is physically impossible – PERIOD.

    Oh dear, you really can get pretty fuzzy brained can't you? You have assumed that the two effects are of equal magnitude so that as the effect from one increases, you hope the other reduces to match it. More wishful thinking. If the oceans warm, then the ability of the ocean to hold dissolved CO2 reduces (IF the partial pressure stays the SAME). If the partial pressure increases (as it is doing) – a larger effect – then CO2 solubility will increase and the oceans will acidify. Q.E.D. Did you really think that you had spotted a simple flaw that all the world's ocean scientists had missed? You think rather highly of yourself, despite it being clearly unwarranted.

    C02 Pirate wrote

    Do your research into the science – NOT the propaganda and lies constantly thrown around by global warming alarmists.

    Been there, done that. You have a nerve. You appear to automatically, without scepticism, accept as correct anything that contradicts the mainstream view of climate science but, on the other hand, if anything supports the mainstream view you approach it with a fanatically nit-picky view (and from what I have seen so far, fuzz brained rationality) rather like somebody who looks at the mole on Cindy Crawford's face and claims that proves she's completely ugly, and her mother, and all her relatives too.

    • c02Pirate

      Nick,

      1.) You entirely IGNORE the last paragraph.
      “Of course, since the above analysis is not peer-reviewed and published, it might be worth no more than what you paid for it. But I predict that Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors’ conclusions.”

      Evens is yet to publish anything concerning this paper or anything else that would challenge it. As far as I'm aware Lindzens paper remains unchallenged.

      2.) You then attempt to re-interpret Lindzen.

      “I want to emphasize that the basic agreement frequently described as representing a global warming ‘consensus’ is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem. Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than found in computer models whose sensitivity depend on processes which are clearly misrepresented.”

      In the above Lindzen makes two simple statements
      1. The so called 'consensus' on GW is a 'consensus' based on a non problem.
      and
      2. The FACT that observations DO NOT agree with models.

      It is a very simple, straightforward statement that needs NO interpretation at all.
      Yet – YOU attempt to spin it in to something else – a very pathetic attempt.

      3.) Oceanic C02 absorption vs temperature.

      Firstly – the term “ocean acidification” is scientifically incorrect and just plain WRONG. This term was created by alarmists simply because it sounds scary and nasty. It is misleading, incorrect and is aimed to instill fear and concern. The term has nothing to do with science, honesty or truth – it is simply to draw attention and scare the ignorant. This is a very common practice that comes NOT from science but from the propaganda of those who wish to mislead and defraud.
      The correct scientific term for the process is “Neutralization”.
      BTW: Oceans will NEVER become acidic – PERIOD.
      This should tell you something about those who created the term and those promoting it as such.

      Secondly – YOU ARE WRONG and you completely contradict all KNOWN science, physics and chemistry.

      You have said as much your self.
      Nick Palmer wrote:
      “If the oceans warm, then the ability of the ocean to hold dissolved CO2 reduces (IF the partial pressure stays the SAME).”

      This is half correct except – partial pressure can NOT remain the same as the ocean will release C02 into the atmosphere thus increasing C02 partial pressure (pC02)
      This statement alone shows your complete acceptance of the hypothesis without even a second thought.

      The mechanism YOU describe for neutralization is WRONG and completely impossible.
      Once again I suggest you take a good hard long look at the Vostok ice core data. Its an excellent record of how oceans really react to warming. The Vostok data clearly shows oceanic C02 out gassing thus elevating pC02 (partial pressure) as the oceans warm until a new equilibrium is established.
      Then as temp drops, C02 follows indicating C02 returning to the oceans and a return to the previous equilibrium. This is very simple stuff.

      The mechanism YOU describe for neutralization is completely contradictory – it would necessarily mean that while the ocean is out gassing C02 it would also have to be absorbing C02 at the same time – this is complete nonsense and physically impossible.

      Sea water is much more sensitive to temperature than to C02 partial pressure.
      If it wasn't then out gassing due to temperature rises could NOT occur.
      Once again I refer you to the best empirical real world evidence of this in the Vostok ice core records.

      Ocean neutralization combined with AGW.
      If increasing levels of C02 raise surface and ocean temperature the oceans will begin to release C02 way before any partial pressure can have any influence. This will mean raising C02 partial pressure even more until a new equilibrium is established resulting in LESS dissolved C02 – PERIOD.

      The ONLY way ocean neutralization can occur is if ocean temps remain at the same temperature – while C02 levels rise – only then will C02 have any effect on lowering ph in sea water.
      But of course this would mean the AGW hypothesis is wrong.

      So I say again as does the science – it is impossible to have warming ocean that is absorbing C02.
      The two hypotheses of AGW and Ocean Neutralization are diametrically opposed – they mutually exclusive, you can have either one but not both.

      But even having said that – ocean neutralization would NOT be detrimental to any sea life at all.
      There is great wealth of scientific literature available concerning the effects of this in real world studies and papers. I suggest you do a little research in that area also.

      Nick, You can believe what ever you like but this will not change the physics of what actually happens in the real world.

      But if you still believe a fictitious hypothesis that describes a mechanism that defies all known the science – then check the scientific literature concerning actual experimental and real world empirical data that shows the effects of adding more C02 to sea water.
      There are quite a few papers that completely refute all claims made by alarmists regarding this hypothesis.

      Although you claim to have done some research you display complete ignorance of real world data. This is testament to your blind acceptance, unquestioning support and belief in an “hypotheses” rather than that of real science and data that shows it void of all science.

      As I said – do your research into the science. You will NOT find science at sites like “RealClimate” and other alarmist self supporting sites with agendas and positions to support. The Real Climate site is run by none other than the CRU – they MUST support the CRU position on everything. It would be like visiting a tobacco company site while researching the health effects of smoking.

      The following link provides scientific and chemical information where you may make a more informed decision – it also references many papers showing that the chemical processes that take place when C02 is absorbed by sea water does NOT weaken nor destroy shell fish, coral or other sea life – rather it is of benefit to many sea creatures.
      Although much of the discussion is around the chemical processes I’m sure you would benefit even if you don’t understand the equations used.
      http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/tox

      I too used to believe in the AGW hypothesis for many years.
      I noticed a few obvious cracks in the propaganda that lead me to dig into the sciences looking for answers. This was NOT easy – my belief in AGW for many years was simply shattered to pieces and it took sometime and a lot of research before I could accept the fact that my belief was wrong. Its a very hard pill to swallow – trust me.
      Its not easy going against everything you previously believed as real and true.
      The biggest lesson I learnt was – things are not always what you have been led to believe they are.

      Nick – I wish you luck in your research and hope you can keep an open mind long enough to allow scientific truth to push past all that you have been told and led to believe.

  • sidguill

    I would like someone who believes in global warming answer 2 questions for me. I've not got one answer yet. Al Gore said in his movie that polar bears are endangered from global warming melting the ice. Yet you can find out in 5 minutes that populations of polar bears have went from about 5 thousand in the 50s to around 25 thousand today. Well maybe he just made a mistake. The 2nd is that he said in his movie that oceans would rise 20 feet from melting ice. Why did he buy a 9 million dollar home next to the ocean in California ? Apparently Al Gore doesn't believe he really told the truth, yet he gets an Oscar for his documentary. Maybe he should have got it for fiction?

    • c02Pirate

      sidguill
      You have answered your own questions and you are correct.
      Al Gore is a liar, cheat, fraudster and did I mention LIAR.
      Seriously – he was a politician – and what do politicians do all the time?

      Al Gore has been challenged many many times to back up the BS in his movie with facts and real evidence – to this day he has been NOT been held to account for the many misrepresentations and straight out lies. He point blank refuses to enter into any discussion or debate – why? Because he knows damn well that the facts and evidence DO NOT support his BS.
      Many have called for him to return both the oscar and the nobel prize.

      The fact that he bought a beach side mansion should spell it out for all – not even HE believes this AGW hogwash.

      Cya.
      c02pirate.

      • sidguill

        Thanks for the comments. I think he should be pounded for the house on the beach, yet all I here is ” another high carbon house” . I think most miss the point that this totally exposes him. He is either a liar or plans on being a fish. No other option. What I don't like is, we are about to get cap and trade which will kill this country. and for a lie. They know its a lie, but have so many people believing this has to be done. We need to educate as many as we can.  Thanks, Sid Guill

        • c02Pirate

          sidguill,

          For an example of how these MORONS behave – check out youtube – search for Ed Begley Jr.
          He appeared at some convention or something on global warming and while talking appeared visibly upset. Later he was caught on camera boasting that it was all an act – saying “I'm an actor – I was just acting”.

          This is very telling and shows just how far MORONS like these will go, they lie, cheat, manipulate data, break the law and also (in Ed Begley Jr case) pretend (act) in public as if they care when in fact its nothing but an act.
          They are a pathetic bunch of looses

        • sidguill

          Thanks for the feed back. I'm glad you sent me this, I will use it.I wish more was made of Gores house by the ocean. He seems to get a pass on it. Nice to have those like you on my side.

  • sidguill

    Thanks for the feed back. I'm glad you sent me this, I will use it.I wish more was made of Gores house by the ocean. He seems to get a pass on it. Nice to have those like you on my side.

  • Pingback: Climate Scientist Warns of Political Heat on Global Warming if Republicans Win | Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit

  • Pingback: While We Feel the Heat, Another Climate Denier Sees the Light | TriplePundit