Climategate?

Daddysim

djpbarry wrote: »

This video might help explain things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

It illustrates that while record low temperatures are being recorded across Eurasia in particular, record highs are being recorded elsewhere, such as in the Arctic.
No, CO2 doesn't block visible light, but it does absorb (and emit) infra-red radiation. The Earth, having being warmed by the sun's rays, radiates energy in the infra-red band, which is "trapped" by greenhouse gases.

Thats what I meant, that the increased C02 absorbs some of the infra red rays from the Sun, preventing them getting to us. Consequently we are less warm that we would be if the C02 wasn't there, and was not preventing some of the suns infra red rays.

djpbarry

Daddysim wrote: »

Thats what I meant, that the increased C02 absorbs some of the infra red rays from the Sun, preventing them getting to us.

If CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is absorbing infrared radiation, then said radiation has already “gotten to us”, has it not? However, solar energy is spread across the visible and near infrared spectrum, so CO2 isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference to solar energy passing through the atmosphere (as far as I’m aware). But either way, it’s somewhat irrelevant – even if CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbing infrared from the sun rather than the Earth, that’s still more heat in the atmosphere, either way.

There's a graphic here (from wikipedia) that may be of use:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg/1000px-Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg.png

I think the original graphic (from NASA) on which it is based is here:
http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/all98invProject.Site/Pages/trl/inv2-1.abstract.html

If CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbing IR radiation, then logically it would be warming the upper atmosphere. There is more to the sun than just IR radiation, there is the magnetic fields generated by the sun as well to consider, this field has shown a considerable weakening in the past few years after a period if high activity (that co-incided with the warming of the 1980s & 90s), we can observe this by looking at the reduced sunspot activity in the current cycle.

Reduced magnetic energy from the sun has a direct affect on the Earths magnetic field and it also weakens, this has resulted in more cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, this in turn has resulted in greater cloud formation (a similar affect as seen in jet con trails).

Greater cloud cover reduced solar energy reaching the planets surface, meaning it is warmed less, therefore reducing the energy in the climate = natural climate change!

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

There is more to the sun than just IR radiation, there is the magnetic fields generated by the sun as well to consider, this field has shown a considerable weakening in the past few years after a period if high activity (that co-incided with the warming of the 1980s & 90s), we can observe this by looking at the reduced sunspot activity in the current cycle.

This theory has been brought up repeatedly, usually by yourself, and it has been shown repeatedly that there is no correlation between solar activity and recent warming:

Deleted User wrote: »

Reduced magnetic energy from the sun has a direct affect on the Earths magnetic field and it also weakens, this has resulted in more cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, this in turn has resulted in greater cloud formation

It’s a nice theory, but there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud formation, nor that there has been any great change in cosmic ray intensity over the last few decades. Furthermore, it is not conclusive that increased cloud cover would result in a cooler planet.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

This theory has been brought up repeatedly, usually by yourself, and it has been shown repeatedly that there is no correlation between solar activity and recent warming:


It’s a nice theory, but there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays influence cloud formation, nor that there has been any great change in cosmic ray intensity over the last few decades. Furthermore, it is not conclusive that increased cloud cover would result in a cooler planet.

That chart stops in about 2007, before the current change in solar activity (& changes in weather patterns). As for cloud formation, I linked to research from a Danish study earlier up that appears do confirm this theory.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

That chart stops in about 2007, before the current change in solar activity (& changes in weather patterns).

And? If the chart isn't showing correlation for the period it does cover, then the best that could be argued is that since 2007 there is correlation.

This, of course, would immediately be offset against the fact that before 2007, there was no correlation....indicating that over the relevant timeperiods being analyzed there is, in effect, no correlation.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

As for cloud formation, I linked to research from a Danish study earlier up that appears do confirm this theory.

Svensmark? His results do not stand up to scrutiny:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(03)00041-5

gullon

djpbarry wrote: »

Svensmark? His results do not stand up to scrutiny:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(03)00041-5

Jasper Kirby of Cern thinks there is a link:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.pdf

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

djpbarry

gullon wrote: »

Jasper Kirby of Cern thinks there is a link...

I think it would be more accurate to say that Jasper Kirkby is investigating the possibility of a link.

MalteseBarry

We seem to hear less and less now about global warming or climate change. I understand the "carbon exchange", based in the USA and when it was formed claimed that in a few short years would be trading gazillions of dollars in carbon trades, and that carbon would be more valuable than silver or gold, is barely trading and the price for carbon is less than $0.05 per ton.

After the climategate scandal, the scandal that many of the IPCC's predictions were based, not on science, but on the unscientific claims of environmental activists, I wonder is interest in the subject waning? Certainly, there seems little activity here on boards.ie recently on the subject.

djpbarry

MalteseBarry wrote: »

We seem to hear less and less now about global warming or climate change. I understand the "carbon exchange", based in the USA and when it was formed claimed that in a few short years would be trading gazillions of dollars in carbon trades, and that carbon would be more valuable than silver or gold, is barely trading and the price for carbon is less than $0.05 per ton.

After the climategate scandal, the scandal that many of the IPCC's predictions were based, not on science, but on the unscientific claims of environmental activists, I wonder is interest in the subject waning?

You seem to be conflating a whole load of separate issues there. The reason we are hearing no more about “Climategate” is because, as it turns out, it wasn’t a scandal at all. I am aware of three separate reviews of/inquiries into the incident (House of Commons committee, Science Assessment Panel and Independent Climate Change Email Review), none of which found evidence of any scientific malpractice.

The main reason we don't hear much about now is simply the fact that there are far more worrying things for people to worry about now.

Things like being able to afford the mortgage, keeping a job, food & food prices etc

someoneok

This was to be the new bubble. The rulers who's scam this was failed in an attempt to get all countries on board so it has been shelved. The sheep who bleat on about it are the typical greeny types who love all this garbage but they are not so vocal anymore showing us that they are full of it. This was one of the biggest red herrings I have experienced in my lifetime anyway.

djpbarry

someoneok wrote: »

This was to be the new bubble. The rulers who's scam this was failed in an attempt to get all countries on board so it has been shelved.

Save it for Conspiracy Theories please.

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

You seem to be conflating a whole load of separate issues there. The reason we are hearing no more about “Climategate” is because, as it turns out, it wasn’t a scandal at all. I am aware of three separate reviews of/inquiries into the incident (House of Commons committee, Science Assessment Panel and Independent Climate Change Email Review), none of which found evidence of any scientific malpractice.

the chairman of the house of Commons Committee said "The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at
CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid
disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics."

The effect of all this is not that they have been cleared, or not, by some report ro committee, but the effect on public confidence.

The confidence of the public has been greatly shaken, not just by the dishonesty which the leaked emails showed , but also by the IPCC claims which showed that at least some of the conclusions of their reports, which they initially claimed were all based on peer reviewed science, were in fact based on the non scientific claims of pressure groups and not on a balanced or scientific view.

The loss of public confidence has been the real damage.

bonkey

edwinkane wrote: »

the IPCC claims which showed that at least some of the conclusions of their reports, which they initially claimed were all based on peer reviewed science, were in fact based on the non scientific claims of pressure groups and not on a balanced or scientific view.

The report from Working Group 1 (inventively named the WG1 report) was based on peer-reviewed science and states such in its introduction.

The WG2 report not only doesn't make such a claim, it always stated that it included the use of non-peer-reviewed "grey" literature.

So while I can't comment on whether or not individuals may have misrepresented the reports, the reports themselves never claimed to be "all based on peer reviewed science". Quite the opposite, in fact.

edwinkane

edwinkane;71072570… the IPCC claims which showed that at least some of the conclusions of their reports&#8230 wrote: »

bonkey wrote: »

… it always stated that it included the use of non-peer-reviewed "grey" literature…

It was the conclusions to which I referred, rather than the more general contents.

However, whichever way one views this, the damage has been done insofar as the public confidence in the IPCC has been damaged as a result.

bonkey

edwinkane wrote: »

It was the conclusions to which I referred, rather than the more general contents.

Can you show me, then, where anyone representing the IPCC or any document coming from them has suggested that these conclusions were based on nothing but peer-reviewed science?

However, whichever way one views this, the damage has been done insofar as the public confidence in the IPCC has been damaged as a result.

Public confidence in the IPCC has mostly been damaged by people setting out to attack the IPCC in order to undermine public confidence.

I have no argument that people attacking the IPCC have made claims to the effect of we were told this was fact / peer-reviewed, but now it turns out it wasn't" (which the public then believe), but I have honestly yet to see any evidence that we were, in fact, told any such thing.

Climategate is another case in point. The public's "understanding" of what really happened there was mostly formed in the initial media frenzy. The final findings of the various investigative groups which looked into it were byline news at best.

So yes...public confidence has been shaken...but mostly by the same way that the public confidence was built...media handling of the issue, rather then by the facts of the case.

edwinkane

bonkey wrote: »

So yes...public confidence has been shaken...but mostly by the same way that the public confidence was built...media handling of the issue, rather then by the facts of the case.

Whatever the reason for it, my observation is that public confidence in the issue has been shaken, which is the important and worrying element.

In addition there is an element of climate-change-fatigue in the ether. I can tell from your post you are frustrated by the role of the media, but the media does what the media does and no amount of hand wringing will change that. The media is responsible for many things (notably the perpetration of that great oxymoron, "celebrity culture") which I abhor. But I am powerless to stop it and can only react, which I do by, for example, not having a tv and avoiding the ghastly sky news and most "news" programs which are, in fact, more akin to entertainment programs.