Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Cold Snap Disproves Global Warming

[Doc]

MSB posted this little gem in a separate thread (which I have left intact).......however, since most of the action on this topic is here for the past few days, I felt it important that it be copied here......

A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.

If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports. For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangereous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.

Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangereous line between hype and science. It is Mr. Weaver, for example, who said the IPCC’s 2007 science report — the one now subject to some scrutiny —“isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.”

He has also made numerous television appearances linking current weather and temperature events with global warming, painting sensational pictures and dramatic links. “When you see these [temperature] numbers, it’s screaming out at you: ‘This is global warming!”
Mr. Weaver is also one of the authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an IPCC-related piece of agit-prop issued just before the recent Copenhagen meeting.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is as manipulative a piece of policy advocacy as can be found, filled with forboding and alarming assessments. Described as “an interim evaluation of the evolving science,” it was an attempt to jump-start decision-making at Copenhagen. It failed, perhaps in part because one of the authors was U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann, who plays a big role in the climategate emails.

That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble. He’s getting out while the getting’s good, and blaming the IPCC’s upper echelon for the looming crisis.

In the language typical of an IPPC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by climategate and glaciergate strongly suggest there is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely” in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate change political machine is going to come crashing down.

Mr. Weaver’s acknowledgement that climategate—the release/leak/theft of thousands of incriminating emails from a British climate centre showing deep infighting and number manipulation — demonstrates a problem is real news in itself. When climategate broke as a story last November, Mr. Weaver dismissed it as unimportant and appeared in the media with a cockamame story about how his offices had also been broken into and that the fossil fuel industry might be responsible for both climategate and his office break-in.

The latest IPCC fiasco looks even more damaging. In the 2007 IPCC report that Mr. Weaver said revealed climate change to be a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles, it turns out one of those missiles — a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 — was a fraud. Not an accidental fraud, but a deliberately planted piece of science fiction. The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we” did it because “we thought ... it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

Mr. Weaver told Canwest that the Himalayan incident is “one small thing” and not a sign of a “global conspiracy to drum up false evidence of global warming.” We shall see. It is a safe bet that there have been other tweaks,  twists, manipulations and distortions in IPCC science reports over the years. New revelations are inevitable. Now is a good time to get out of the kitchen. Mr. Weaver is the first out the door.




Read more: http://network.nationalpo...e-ipcc.aspx#ixzz0dprQkf8N
 

It appears that the "Titanic" is sinking, and this time the crew has chosen to get off first........as I predicted upthread.......

doc

[The Night Owl]

See?  There you go again.  CO2 is a basic building block of life, not a pollutant.  You believe it is a pollutant, but that is only a belief.

Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.

[thundley4]

Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.

Either all CO₂ is a pollutant or none of it is.

[Chris_]

Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.

Now THAT is an intelligent response........how would we separate the molecules of CO2 that are man-made  (if any) from those that are naturally occurring.......

CO2 is CO2........do you think that the gasses coming out of my SUV's tailpipe have a molecular tag on them shouting "I am man-made........"

You are brighter than that TNO........that's just lame.....

doc

[Carl]

4-3-2-1 until long rambling screed that anything introduced into the enviroment by man or other reason that is "detrimental" is going to be classified as a "pollutant" regardless of whether it also occurs natually.

We will be back to semantics and word games again.

[The Night Owl]

Now THAT is an intelligent response........how would we separate the molecules of CO2 that are man-made  (if any) from those that are naturally occurring.......

CO2 is CO2........do you think that the gasses coming out of my SUV's tailpipe have a molecular tag on them shouting "I am man-made........"

You are brighter than that TNO........that's just lame.....

doc

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
22 December 2004

Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated

Okay?

[Chris_]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated

Okay?

Absolutely NOT OK........I advised you earlier in this thread that "realclimate.org" is not a credible source......they are a political advocacy site........the next link to that nest of liars will be deleted.........

Got it?

They are toast.......

doc

[The Night Owl]

Absolutely NOT OK........I advised you earlier in this thread that "realclimate.org" is not a credible source......they are a political advocacy site........the next link to that nest of liars will be deleted.........

Got it?

They are toast.......

doc

The people who run Real Climate and write articles for it are all climate scientists or scientists working in related fields.

[Duke Nukum]

Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.

How does "man-made" co2 differ from "natural" co2?

If we took an air sample, could we tell the "man-made" co2 molecules from the "natural" co2 molecules?

If a tree is absorbing co2, does it check and reject "man made" co2? That would make trees bigots!

[Duke Nukum]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated

Okay?

Sorry, I didn't see this before I posted below.  But still, I would rather hear it from a tree itself.  I trust trees more than I trust climate "scientists."

[Chris_]

The people who run Real Climate and write articles for it are all climate scientists or scientists working in related fields.

They have been discredited as liars and propagandists, scientists or not........you have my decision on them.

If you are going to argue your position, and cite sources, you will have to find some that are credible.......not realclimate.

doc

[The Night Owl]

They have been discredited as liars and propagandists, scientists or not........you have my decision on them.

If you are going to argue your position, and cite sources, you will have to find some that are credible.......not realclimate.

doc

Has anyone from Real Climate been disciplined, fired, or indicted for anything?

[Chris_]

Has anyone from Real Climate been disciplined, fired, or indicted for anything?

The owner of the site, and a number of the so-called "scientists" that write for that site were complicit in the "climategate" affair, that was shown to have proffered doctored data, and fraudulent statements as fact.

I am a scientist, albeit retired, and the people that inhabit that site, and write papers for it have pissed off thousands of legitimate scientists working all over the world on any number of projects because what they did, is simply not done in science.........it gives all scientists a bad name, and lowers our credibility in the eyes of students, other scholars, and the public..........

So far they have not been accused of violating any laws, although several of them are under investigation in the UK.........what they did was violate the trust of the science community in general, and the public at large.........

THAT eliminates them as a credible source.....

I'm not going to debate this with you TNO, you have my decision on this matter.

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Has anyone from Real Climate been disciplined, fired, or indicted for anything?

Jones has been suspended.

Numerous people have admitted that politically motivated points made it into the IPCC

If stealclimate.com stands by by the liar and the fraud-ridden report they impeach themselves.

[The Night Owl]

Jones has been suspended.

Numerous people have admitted that politically motivated points made it into the IPCC

If stealclimate.com stands by by the liar and the fraud-ridden report they impeach themselves.

Phil Jones is not a member of the RC team. I would post a link to a list of RC members but I'm apparently not allowed to. LOL!

[The Night Owl]

The owner of the site, and a number of the so-called "scientists" that write for that site were complicit in the "climategate" affair, that was shown to have proffered doctored data, and fraudulent statements as fact.

I am a scientist, albeit retired, and the people that inhabit that site, and write papers for it have pissed off thousands of legitimate scientists working all over the world on any number of projects because what they did, is simply not done in science.........it gives all scientists a bad name, and lowers our credibility in the eyes of students, other scholars, and the public..........

So far they have not been accused of violating any laws, although several of them are under investigation in the UK.........what they did was violate the trust of the science community in general, and the public at large.........

THAT eliminates them as a credible source.....

I'm not going to debate this with you TNO, you have my decision on this matter.

doc

Whatever. This is neither here nor there. The point is that distinguishing between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 can be done. The science for this is in no way controversial. What is controversial are estimates of how much man-made CO2 is in the environment.

[dutch508]

Whatever. This is neither here nor there. The point is that distinguishing between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 can be done. The science for this is in no way controversial. What is controversial are estimates of how much man-made CO2 is in the environment.

So...


you can tell the diff between CO2 and CO2 by their emitters?

[The Night Owl]

So...

you can tell the diff between CO2 and CO2 by their emitters?

No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.

[dutch508]

No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.

Explain to me the differencs in isotopes between man-made CO2 and natural CO2, and the definition on your mind of what natural CO2 is.

[Doc]

No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.

Pray tell......how do you distinguish between atmospheric CO2 (a free uncombined gas) by its isotopes?  The only way in which to do so would be to combine it with a reactive heavier element.........how would that result differentiate between naturally occurring CO2 and that which is industrial?  Answer: it wouldn't........

Question two.......how do we actually know how much CO2 in emitted by industry?

Since CO2 is essentially "plant food" and is utilized via photosynthesis to generate oxygen in nature, the amount of it in the atmosphere is constantly changing, so where do we actually measure its levels........next to a rain forest, or in the middle of the Sahara?   They will be different, you know........

How is a general determination reached as to the "atmospheric level" of CO2 (without citing "realclimate")?

As an aside.......I have a small hand-held gas spectrometer that I use to monitor Radon levels in my basement, and I just came back from measuring the CO2 level in my back yard........it measured 192 ppm.........now that level is far below what these "climate scientists" site as the "atmospheric" level.......can you explain that.......?



doc

[NHSparky]

No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.

Isotopes--really?  Pray tell, dipshit, how does C-12 become C-13 or C-14 simply because it has been "produced" by man?  Did we all of a sudden just bombard the shit with our pocket neutron sources?

[Duke Nukum]

This whole co2 thing isn't making sense to me.  Who makes coal and oil? As far as I know, humans just find it in the earth and use it so how does "manmade" co2 get made? 

[Chris_]

This whole co2 thing isn't making sense to me.  Who makes coal and oil? As far as I know, humans just find it in the earth and use it so how does "manmade" co2 get made? 

The consumption of fossil fuels through combustion combines the carbon molecules in the fuel with atmospheric oxygen to produce CO2 as well as other gasses, leaving solid residue of other carbon compounds......

In a closed system, the amount of carbon,, oxygen, and other elements remains constant, but their molecular composition changes.

doc

[The Night Owl]

As an aside.......I have a small hand-held gas spectrometer that I use to monitor Radon levels in my basement, and I just came back from measuring the CO2 level in my back yard........it measured 192 ppm.........now that level is far below what these "climate scientists" site as the "atmospheric" level.......can you explain that.......?

I don't know why the CO2 level in your backyard is at 192 ppm. Perhaps you live close to a large carbon sink?

Anyway, here is an interesting article and video on carbon monitoring: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0604-tracking_global_carbon.htm

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Phil Jones is not a member of the RC team. I would post a link to a list of RC members but I'm apparently not allowed to. LOL!

stealclimate.com was very prominent in the fraud:

The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.

“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.

There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.

What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.

In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.

It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

No, Jones may not sit on the board of stealclimate.com...they're just his cabana boys.

And stealclimate.com had no trouble with serving to deame those who dared teach heresy:

The most critical point throughout these emails is the goal of preventing DCPS from providing what is considered normal in the peer-reviewed literature: an opportunity to respond to their critique, or as they put it, "be given the final word." One wonders if there is ever a "final word" in science, as the authors here seem to imply.


The next day (6 Dec 2007), Melissa Free responds with a cautious note, evidently because she had presented a  paper with Lanzante and Seidel at an American Meteorological Society conference (18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change) acknowledging the existence of a discrepancy between observations and models -- the basic conclusion of the  DCPS paper.

What about the implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air trends? Is this really so dire?

Santer responds (6 Dec 2007) with the key reason for attacking DCPS:

What is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their arguments.

This "willful neglect" of "observational datasets" refers to the absence of two balloon datasets, RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4. (DCPS explain in an addendum that these data sets are faulty. See below.)


A further e-mail from Jones (6 Dec 2007) discusses options to beat DCPS into print. Wigley enters (10 Dec 2007) to accuse DCPS of "fraud" and that under "normal circumstances," this would "cause him [Douglass] to lose his job." We remind the reader that DCPS went through traditional, anonymous peer review with iterations to satisfy the reviewers and without communicating outside proper channels with the editor and reviewers.


Tim Osborn, a colleague of Jones at CRU and a member of the editorial board of IJC, inserts himself into the process, declaring a bias on the issue and stating that Douglass's previous papers "appear to have serious problems." Santer responds with gratitude for the "heads up," again making the claim that DCPS ignored certain balloon datasets. As noted below, DCPS did not use these datasets because they were known to be faulty.


On this day (12 Dec 2007), an unsigned report appeared on RealClimate.org attacking DCPS, especially about not using RAOBCORE 1.4. This prompted the DCPS authors to submit an Addendum to IJC on 3 Jan 2008 to explain in one page two issues: (1) the reason for not using RAOBCORE 1.4 and (2) explaining the experimental design to show why using the full spread of model results to compare with observations (as Santer et al. would do) would lead to wrong conclusions about the relationship between trends in the upper air temperature versus the surface -- see Appendix A. (A copy of the addendum may be found at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass.)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Hm-m-m...

Maybe THIS is prescient:

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike




--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt

So Michael Mann-toucher and his merry band of misanthropes filter dissenting comments from RC.

Maybe that is why TVDOC (and other people known as "the sane") won't use that site.

So quit whining, whiner.

Isotopes--really?  Pray tell, dipshit, how does C-12 become C-13 or C-14 simply because it has been "produced" by man?  Did we all of a sudden just bombard the shit with our pocket neutron sources?

You glow worms are so cute.