Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[rushmc 23]

Bill, I have been following all that has happened very closely. I remember what you and kallend have posted, looked at many sides and then I see this today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

Then I remember you and kallend posting to peer review, all the theories, qualifications, the data and now I ask, what is this mans qualifications? As far as the AWG debate goes, what are this mans qualifications, and why should anybody pay attention to him?

I listened to some interviews today, read more news articles and op eds today as well. T



And now, the media (and the CRU) is using a man with these credentials to try and calm the storm???

kallend, based on your posts prior, why should anyone look at this guy as credible in the AWG realm?

http://www.nyas.org/whoweare/bog/pachauri.aspx

The CRU members have in and of themselves dealt a huge blow to any one supporting the AWG theory. Sorry, but that is a fact. Only HONEST scientific research and debate will bring that (the debate) back if it (AWG) is true. At this point? Huge doubts will fog the topic. And that is fact too.

It will make things start over. (from a point) It may not be a big deal in the public realm but, it has already became a big deal in true scientific research circles. And this I know YOU know is true. And with the deceit perpetrated by the CRU known, the politics of the AWG supporters has been slowed at worst and hopefully stopped at best. It is now time for real science

Time will tell

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,090]

>I understood what you said just fine - I'm not letting you sidetrack
>the question.

Ok. Your last question was: "So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?"

The "that" your pot was in reply to was the list of three facts I posted. You could not refute them, so you decided to make "that" into another topic, which were tropospheric temperature records.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I understood what you said just fine - I'm not letting you sidetrack
>the question.

Ok. Your last question was: "So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?"

The "that" your pot was in reply to was the list of three facts I posted. You could not refute them, so you decided to make "that" into another topic, which were tropospheric temperature records.

not refuting them does not make your postulation/position true however, does it........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I understood what you said just fine - I'm not letting you sidetrack
>the question.

Ok. Your last question was: "So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?"

The "that" your pot was in reply to was the list of three facts I posted. You could not refute them, so you decided to make "that" into another topic, which were tropospheric temperature records.

Whatever you say, Bill. I answered your smartass remark with one of my own.

Unless you're stating that the tropo satellites made the determination that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that the tropo satellites can somehow determine between manmade CO2 and natural CO2, then the only statement left for my satellite statement to be in rebuttal to would be the "results in more heat retained" statement, would it not?

So, now that we have you up to speed - care to explain how, if the "increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is Earth", how the tropo satellites aren't picking up that heat?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,090]

>care to explain how, if the "increases in CO2 result in more heat
>retained in the radiative system that is Earth", how the tropo
>satellites aren't picking up that heat?

Sure. Far more things influence the climate than re-radiation caused by CO2 - it's just one of the many factors. For example, the troposphere over North America is currently cooling. That does not mean that global warming is "all a bunch of crap" - it's called winter. Likewise, the troposphere will warm rapidly come spring. That doesn't mean we'll all be dead in 10 years - it's just what happens during spring.

What is more important is what happens over the long term. And in the long term, the troposphere is (slowly) warming.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html

But to get back to the original point - IT DOESN'T MATTER. If the sun's output continues to drop after this unusually quiet sunspot cycle (which is unlikely) the troposphere may begin to cool, because it's getting less energy overall. That does not change the fact that the increased CO2 traps more heat in the system, since that is not the only factor that causes warming - and the heat lost due to the sun's lower output may well dominate the equation.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>care to explain how, if the "increases in CO2 result in more heat
>retained in the radiative system that is Earth", how the tropo
>satellites aren't picking up that heat?

Sure. Far more things influence the climate than re-radiation caused by CO2 - it's just one of the many factors. For example, the troposphere over North America is currently cooling. That does not mean that global warming is "all a bunch of crap" - it's called winter. Likewise, the troposphere will warm rapidly come spring. That doesn't mean we'll all be dead in 10 years - it's just what happens during spring.

Another misdirect, unless it's been winter for that last decade.

What is more important is what happens over the long term. And in the long term, the troposphere is (slowly) warming.

[billvon 3,090]

>Another misdirect . . .

OK, I'll try one more example - see if this is clearer.

Statement #1 - Increasing the insulation in the walls/windows of a house increases the heat retained in the system that is the house.

Now, let's say you add insulation to your house - get better windows, add insulation in the walls etc. The next winter, you decide to turn your thermostat down from your usual 68 to 66. The temperature is lower on average. Does that mean that the insulation is allowing MORE heat to escape than it did before you added the insulation? Does the lower average temperature now disprove statement #1?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Another misdirect . . .

OK, I'll try one more example - see if this is clearer.

Statement #1 - Increasing the insulation in the walls/windows of a house increases the heat retained in the system that is the house.

Now, let's say you add insulation to your house - get better windows, add insulation in the walls etc. The next winter, you decide to turn your thermostat down from your usual 68 to 66. The temperature is lower on average. Does that mean that the insulation is allowing MORE heat to escape than it did before you added the insulation? Does the lower average temperature now disprove statement #1?

You're the one that has told me for the last few years that it's all due to the insulation - changing your mind all of a sudden and blaming it on the thermostat, now?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,090]

>You're the one that has told me for the last few years that it's all
>due to the insulation - changing your mind all of a sudden and
>blaming it on the thermostat, now?

No, I'm telling you that the insulation does not control the furnace. It just reduces heat loss. If your furnace runs exactly the same amount of time, puts out as much heat, if you don't open the windows etc then insulation will, on average, make your house warmer. If the furnace runs more it will make the house even warmer than that - but that doesn't mean it's all due to the insulation. If your furnace runs less your house may well be cooler - but that doesn't mean the insulation is useless, or is trapping less heat.

In other words, even if your tropospheric data is correct (which I disagree with) that doesn't change the validity of any of the original three statements. (Which, BTW, were proposed long before warming became very noticeable.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You're the one that has told me for the last few years that it's all
>due to the insulation - changing your mind all of a sudden and
>blaming it on the thermostat, now?

No, I'm telling you that the insulation does not control the furnace. It just reduces heat loss. If your furnace runs exactly the same amount of time, puts out as much heat, if you don't open the windows etc then insulation will, on average, make your house warmer. If the furnace runs more it will make the house even warmer than that - but that doesn't mean it's all due to the insulation. If your furnace runs less your house may well be cooler - but that doesn't mean the insulation is useless, or is trapping less heat.

"We are putting historically high levels of CO2 in the air now. That's the primary source of the "forcing" (increased heating) we are seeing now. "

^^^ your words.

Quote

In other words, even if your tropospheric data is correct (which I disagree with) that doesn't change the validity of any of the original three statements. (Which, BTW, were proposed long before warming became very noticeable.)

The graph didn't come from M&M, if that's what you're worried about - it's from raw data from the vortex and ssmi websites.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Your graph shows heating since 2000. Why do you think it shows otherwise?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

>care to explain how, if the "increases in CO2 result in more heat
>retained in the radiative system that is Earth", how the tropo
>satellites aren't picking up that heat?

Sure. Far more things influence the climate than re-radiation caused by CO2 - it's just one of the many factors. For example, the troposphere over North America is currently cooling. That does not mean that global warming is "all a bunch of crap" - it's called winter. Likewise, the troposphere will warm rapidly come spring. That doesn't mean we'll all be dead in 10 years - it's just what happens during spring.

Another misdirect, unless it's been winter for that last decade.

What is more important is what happens over the long term. And in the long term, the troposphere is (slowly) warming.

The data doesn't seem to support your claim.

[billvon 3,090]

>your words.

Right. Heat does not equal temperature.

>The graph didn't come from M&M, if that's what you're worried
>about - it's from raw data from the vortex and ssmi websites.

Correct. Which is what the paper I cited discussed.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Time will tell

The COOL thing about science (as opposed to political or religious dogma) is that it is self-correcting despite any bias or foolishness of individual scientists.

You seem to think you have found a smoking gun. YOU HAVEN'T.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>your words.

Right. Heat does not equal temperature.

>The graph didn't come from M&M, if that's what you're worried
>about - it's from raw data from the vortex and ssmi websites.

Correct. Which is what the paper I cited discussed.

Spin, spin, spin... can you hold these wires while you do that, please?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Your graph shows heating since 2000. Why do you think it shows otherwise?

It shows an overall cooling trend since 1998 - why do you think it doesn't?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Sometimes it seems that you really don't understand the things you cut and paste.

Wow, you're absolutely right, perfesser - how SILLY of me to believe the graph of the data, over such luminaries as you and bill telling me that I'm wrong.

But, since you're poking your nose in again, why don't you explain how the graph doesn't actually show what's happening.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Your graph shows heating since 2000. Why do you think it shows otherwise?

It shows an overall cooling trend since 1998 - why do you think it doesn't?

A cooling trend? Where?

http://www.theglobalwarmingoverview.com/index.php/Global-Warming-Statistics.html

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,090]

Never mind. Yes, this is the latest "final nail in the coffin" for climate change; you have once again disproven physics.

[DanG 1]

If you use the hottest year on record as your baseline, anything would be cooler.

Take a look at trends since 1982 and tell me again how we are in a cooling period.

Now who's cooking the data?

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you use the hottest year on record as your baseline, anything would be cooler.

Now who's cooking the data?

then the trend line would increase until 1998, then trend down - you have a point that actually DISPROVES what I said?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Never mind. Yes, this is the latest "final nail in the coffin" for climate change; you have once again disproven physics.

I never claimed that, Bill - got any more hyperbole?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Take a look at the temperature record since 1982 and tell me again how we're in a cooling period.

Or just ignore it as I expect you to.

- Dan G

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Take a look at the temperature record since 1982 and tell me again how we're in a cooling period.

Or just ignore it as I expect you to.

And if I go back further I can show it flattening out again - have a point? Anywhere that I claimed further back than 98?

Looks like your graph has the same reduction in temps since 1998 as I showed. Too bad you mistake a LINEAR TREND for a temperature record.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Too bad you mistake a LINEAR TREND for a temperature record.

C'mon, Mike. I really do not like beeing forced to have any doubts about your sanity.

How many LINEAR trends do you really need? (And not alone in this actual thread, there were others before )

dudeist skydiver # 3105