ClimateGate busts things wide open

All organisations need a reality check at frequent intervals, including the IPCC. Unfortunately scum floats to the top in all professions, not just politics. I am always suspicious when the top honcho in any organisation has little experience of the core business - such people's interest is often their own success, not the organisations. The head of the IPCC is i fear also such a person.

Claims do need to be justified with some data, and should rightly be questioned. Unfortunately mistakes do frequently get made and not spotted. I have seen this personally. As a lowly government servant, i did some analysis on cost savings of LCD monitors. My boss took my data, reanalysed it himself and presented his findings to the powers that be. Unfortunately in his analysis he forget to change pence into pounds and therefore magnified savings 100 fold. It was published in a press release. When i saw it i knew the figures were wrong and pointed it out. It was made clear to me that my future would be in doubt if i embarrassed the government by publicising this error. No one else cared in my management, all they cared about was their reputation. It was never questioned by the press.

The parrallel is very similar - yes there was a saving, but just a small one - it was a matter of degree. As to the glaciers, NEARLY everyone can see most are shrinking , by how much is the issue. OK, most Indians will not die of thirst this century, just will take a little longer!

What we do know about climate change is that it DOES cause significant changes to the success or otherwise of all life on this planet - some will thrive, some will not. We can either turn up the air conditioning and ignore the outside world, or do something about it.

I wish rather than the debate raging about whether we are damaging the planet or not it was replaced with a far more fruitful debate about what is the best way of dealing with the problems - be it economically, socially or scientifically.

This goes beyond just the climate - let us just say 'sustainability'. It is a fact that resources are finite, and we will be running out of most of them at some time in the not to distant future. We need to plan now, not at the last minute.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/08/late ... sions.html

just scroll down Rick, there are some more 'myths' busted. by REAL scientists not PAMAS.

regards from a cold, wet unpleasant Victoria, OZ.

Peer review is a problem - what Ronan says is very true. Unfortunately, so much 'scientific research' is clamouring to be published these days that it is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff - peer review is one way, but not necessarily the best. I am sure that lots of good research is passed over - lust like authors who cannot get their books into print.

The problem is, getting your fiction published is one thing, getting facts printed is another - FACTS NEED TO BE CORRECT, otherwise it just confuses everyone. These days, a lot of 'science' gets reported unreviewed via websites, newspapers, blogs etc.

You might say a lot of climate science is wrong - but the 'alternative' sources mix facts with fiction and obsolete, since discredited claims to justify current 'claims' (by discredited, i mean claims which appeared valid at the time, since disproved by more recent evidence).

Now, Nevkets link: Story about Cosmic rays driving climate change: Unfortunately hard to find a real source, but somewhat misleading. The link between Cosmic rays and albedo has been made before (first suggested in 1959) but there is a simple test to see if it has a short term impact - the sunspot cycle. Solar flares block some cosmic rays, therefore we should see differences in cloud cover. Indeed there are small differences (it varies with latitude) but the effect on climate is weak - the typical variation in temperature during a cycle is about 0.3 degrees, but is not necessarily due just to the variations in cloud cover and not always in synch. As the cycle is approximately 11 years long, it is just extra noise to the temperature rise of the last 100 years. Where it may make a difference, is in much longer term events, such as the passage of the solar system through the spiral arms of the galaxy; this (a once every 143 million year event) may trigger epochs of glaciation - but this is hardly relevant to the present changes.

There are many climactic cycles caused by the sun, (at least 6 documented) plus the Milankovitch cycles which can effect the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, which can effect our long term climate, before we even consider terrestrial factors.


Also this comment amuses me:

just scroll down Rick, there are some more 'myths' busted. by REAL scientists not PAMAS.

As one contribution was by Lord Monkton, the well known 'scientist' with a degree in Classics, i wonder what his definition of 'REAL' is?

What on earth are PAMAS?

If Nevket is too cold in Victoria, he should try Moscow for a scorcher of a holiday!

Niwa sued over data accuracy
NZPA Last updated 16:09 15/08/2010SharePrint Text Size Relevant offers
The country's state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

The lobby of climate sceptics and ACT Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available.

The coalition said the New Zealand Temperature Records (NZTR) were the historical base of NIWA's advice to the Government on issues relating to climate change.

Coalition spokesman Bryan Leyland said many scientists believed although the earth had been warming for 150 years, it had not heated as much as Government archives claimed.

He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland.

The coalition said the 1degC warming during the 20th century was based on adjustments taken by Niwa from a 1981 student thesis by then student Jim Salinger, a Niwa employee who was later sacked after talking to the media without permission.

The Salinger thesis was subjective and untested and meteorologists more senior to Dr Salinger did not consider the temperature data should be adjusted, it said.

The coalition would ask the court to find Niwa's New Zealand Temperature Record invalid.

It would also seek a court declaration preventing Niwa from using the NZTR when it advised the Government or any other body on global climate issues. It would also ask the court to order Niwa to produce a full and accurate NZTR.

Mr Leyland said Niwa was refusing to repudiate the NZTR to avoid political embarrassment and loss of public confidence.

A substantive hearing was expected later this year.

from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026330 ... a-accuracy

Political Activists Maquerading As Scientists.

Al Gore, your Prophet (profit) is also a journo. NIWA aren't the only ones who have altered data to suit the defrauding of public monies. Our own climate activists have been caught as well. (the pays good)
Moscow, I do not think so. The Russians are just ahead of the Chinese for being an ar#eho#e race. No interest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/m ... -analysis/
Check out NASA's' own map. More cold than hot, but never let a good pic get in the way of a good scam!!!


http://therese-phil.livejournal.com/171196.html

1298: There was a wholesale death of animals. In the same year there was a drought, and the woods and peat bogs burnt.

1364: Halfway through summer there was a complete smoke haze, the heat was dreadful, the forests, bogs and earth were burning, rivers dried up. The same thing happened the following year . . .

1431: following a blotting out of the sky, and pillars of fire, there was a drought – “the earth and the bogs smouldered, there was no clear sky for 6 weeks, nobody saw the sun, fishes, animals and birds died of the smoke.

1735: Empress Anna wrote to General Ushakov: “Andrei Ivanovich, here in St Petersburg it is so smoky that one cannot open the windows, and all because, just like last year, the forests are burning. We are surprised that no-one has thought about how to stem the fires, which are burning for the second year in a row”.

1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years”. In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke. Here and there in various regions of Russia the forests and peat bogs were burning (the firest had begun already in 1939). there was a reddish haze, partially covering the sun, and there were dark, menacing clouds on the horizon. There was a choking stench of smoke which penetrated everywhere, even into houses where the windows remained closed.

1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.

1868: a prolonged drought in the northern regions was accompanied by devastating fires in various regions. Apart from the cities and villages affected by this catastrophe, the forests, peat workings and dried-up marshes were burning. In St Petersburg region smoke filled the city and its outlying districts for several weeks.

1875: While in western europe there is continual rain and they complain about the cold summer, here in Russia there is a terrible drought. In southern Russia all the cereal and fruit crops have died, and around St Petersburg the forest fires are such that in the city itself, especially in the evening, there is a thick haze of smoke and a smell of burning. Yesterday, the burning woods and peat bogs threatened the ammunitiion stores of the artillery range and even Okhtensk gunpowder factory.

1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you at three oclock in the afternoon in such darkness, you would think it was nine oclock at night. For several days, the horizon has been enveloped in a smoke haze, arising, they say, from fires in the forest and peat bogs. Visibility is diminishing by the day, and I’m starting to fear that we might even die of suffocation.

1917 (diary of Aleksandr Blok, poet): There is a smell of burning, as it seems, all around the city peat bogs, undergrowth and trees are burning. And no-one can extinguish it. That will be done only by rain and the winter. Yellowish-brown clouds of smoke envelope the villages, wide swaithes of undergrowth are burning, and God sends no rain, and what wheat there is in the fields is burning.

Gee, who would have thought that the climate is cyclical?? Not the Cult thats for sure.

nev your posts on this subject make little sense at the best of times, but if you learned to use the "quotes" function we could at least determine which is your nonsense, and which is coming from other sources.

Due to the lack of quotes, and from a look at the included link, I assume this is your own stuff?

The Russians are just ahead of the Chinese for being an ar#eho#e race.

If so, good work. Something to be proud of.

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

Ronan. have a read especially pages 89 to 94.

regards

I just don't get it!Everyone can see that there is climate change,no argument about that.The question is if there is scientific proof that Man is causing it,can prevent it or if it is a natural turn of events?