Slashdot Mirror

We know, for a fact, that the former has happened; the question to me is, how far towards the latter end of the spectrum is their behaviour? Release the raw data and let everyone take a look at it, until then I'll always have my doubts as to what is really going on.

Sadly, they don't have the raw data. They threw it away. Worse, they probably have threw it away much more recently than they originally stated.

We'll never see it because they've deliberately destroyed it.

Based on my reading of the e-mails, which are available on Wikileaks for your own inspection, combined with this more recent information about the destruction of the raw data, I'd have to say they are very far towards that latter end of the spectrum.

Here's a nice graph of the NOAA's "adjustments". If you subtract these "adjustments" (their term, not mine) from every OMG Global Warming Will Kill Us ALL graph you've ever seen, you get noise. It doesn't matter whether you add the noise back in forward or backward, or substitute it with properly scaled level data from your favorite MP3: the result is the same alarming graph. But if you reverse the timeline on this "adjustment" and feed in your favorite source of noise you get a chart that looks like a precipitous drop in temperature in 1900-1909 that levelled off. Why did they make these adjustments? Was it because their raw data didn't agree with someone else's observations? I find it difficult to believe that NOAA's measurements became increasingly inaccurate over time with a determinable bias and that at the precise moment their instruments became reliable, the temperature increases stopped. That doesn't jive with my understanding of modern technology and error measurement, nor with my understanding of thermodynamics.

In short since the adjustments are the cause for alarm it would be best if they were examined closely. Most especially since several of the presumably credible sources use such similar "adjustments". The cause for alarm does not appear to be in the raw data. If you know of some credible source of uncooked raw data that does show this cause for alarm continuing to the present day (not ending in 1999), I'd love to see it. Be careful though - adding in these "adjustments" and throwing away the raw data appears to be the order of the day. If that raw data isn't out there, this is just the most amazing piece of pseudo-scientific groupthink I've ever seen.

The story now is that they've only lost 5% of the data, and the rest is good - trust us. This situation is fluid and there will be much more back-and-forth before the truth is finally heard. With the basic facts this dynamic, now is not the time to take bold action on questionable information.

Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.

The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adaptquickly enough.

Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable.

So it might not have anything to do with this? Global Warming - Or Simply Massive Under Sea Volcanoes? - Updated!

"Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday. The eruptions - as big as the one that buried Pompei - took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia..."

Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.

The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adapt quickly enough.

Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable.

Prove that it's due to human behavior. How come every article about the ice shelf melting never mentions the massive eruption that occurred in 1999 spewing superheated water underneath and and melting the ice from below? Hot water is probably still being generated from it.

And what about the southern ice cap, it is growing. how can this happen if the entire planet is warming???

Global Warming - Or Simply Massive Under Sea Volcanoes? - Updated!

"Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday. The eruptions - as big as the one that buried Pompei - took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia."

You mean "toe the line", but never mind.

No, I mean tow the line. And yes, I know the difference. I'm saying that if you have something to say about Global warming, it better support and further the cause or you are ostracized and labeled as an oil company whore or something.

Sadly, scientific progress tends to be made when dogmatic leaders die. 3 decades ago, scientists were worrying about a new ice age. We know from past evidence that the Earth naturally experiences "global warming" to melt ice ages and cools back down again.

Yes, and it was the warning in the father of global warming's first paper. That's right, Hansen got it wrong then and there is nothing to say he didn't get it wrong again. In fact, until his measurements for temperature data were proven to be faulty (because of bad math), he hid all his work and wouldn't share his data sets unless you were "Towing the line".

Where are all the followup stories on the supposed North Pole ice cap melting that hasn't taken place because glaciers grew in the past winter? Hmmm?

I guess that is what I'm asking. And why haven't we seen anything documenting the effects of the undersea volcanic activity in the polar areas and how those interact with the glaciers melting. I mean we just saw a story about the Lava flows doing some unexpected things in the northern polar regions but when you attempt to contribute anything but global warming to glaciers disappearing, you get laughed at or bashed off the stage. I mean look at Al gore's science fiction movie, an inconvenient truth where he manipulated images and contributes the wrong causes to them in order to push the global warming theory.

While I agree with the rest pretty much, I disagree New Orleans is submerged because of Bush. New Orleans was subsiding before Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans is naturally subsiding, sinking, period. And will continue. A city should not be built in such a place. They didn't know it when it was first built but we know it now. Instead of simply rebuilding New Orleans it should be moved to higher ground away from land that is subsiding. Unfortunately much of the Gulf Coast around the Mississippi Delta is subsiding, especially the bayou.

Falcon

Maybe the melting ice could have something to do with this:

AFP Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

Some analysis at:

Global Warming - Or Simply Massive Under Sea Volcanoes?

Some details are mentioned in this article: Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data

"Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen."

Do you see what happened here? Information from a NSA wire tapping program (that can only tap international communications) was used to obtain further warrants. This was a big no-no pre-9/11. NSA wiretaps could never be used to obtain a warrant for criminal prosecution. Here we have a judge complaining about how they were asked for a warrant. Ask yourself why? Why did the government want a warrant? Why did they need a warrant?

The NSA *cannot*, itself, get a warrant. They can only pass on the information to others to get a warrant. It was decided that domestic law enforcement could get a warrant if they were not solely dependent on NSA tap information. In other words they had to do some field work before they could get a warrant.

"So early in 2002, the wary court and government lawyers developed a compromise. Any case in which the government listened to someone's calls without a warrant, and later developed information to seek a FISA warrant for that same suspect, was to be carefully "tagged" as having involved some NSA information. Generally, there were fewer than 10 cases each year, the sources said."

"According to government officials familiar with the program, the presiding FISA judges insisted that information obtained through NSA surveillance not form the basis for obtaining a warrant and that, instead, independently gathered information provide the justification for FISA monitoring in such cases. They also insisted that these cases be presented only to the presiding judge."

This is what has changed. NSA tap information *can* be used this way now. Nothing has changed with regards to what the NSA has been doing for years. What has changed is what happens with the information.

Democrat's Shade Truth On FISA-NSA

Chuckle, chuckle chuckle.

If any of you care to do any of the most basic research on the history of climate studies, you will find some very strong "opinions" with regards to human induced climate change.

I do not think, or at least I haven't found one scientist yet that doesn't think the climate is changing.

Everyone agrees on that.

The human part is the sticky issue. I don't believe for example burning fossil fuels is making the sort of climate changes I have witnessed.

I DO know that when you follow THE MONEY on the issue here is what I come up with:

1) Hollywood has made millions off the idea.
2) Al Gore, has made a VERY comfortable living proclaiming it to be so, with a carbon "footprint" even George Bush would be impressed with, even though he has absolutely no expertise scientifically as a proponent of the idea.
3) Every major university institution is giving position and power to those who "TOW THE LINE" about human induced climate change based on Federal funding and NSF grants, which is very lucrative.
4) Every major prediction proclaimed since this idea has come about has been revised every year. Nobody it would seem can predict climatic change, even though, everyone working on the very lucrative professionally and financially idea of human induced climate change, has got the "research numbers down pat" they all assure us.

Contrast that sort of "fish bowl" science research with those in the astrophysics/solar weather fields that say our sun has/is going "berzerk" in the past 30 years.

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1186 /
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes /sun_activity.html
http://www.spacew.com/astroalert.html

The solar cycles are completly out of "whack" right now.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_sola rminexplodes.htm

The suns behavior is anything but predictable and just this past January I was looking at beautiful aurora while I was visiting Chicago, IL.

Every major planet in the solars system is ALSO experiencing a warming trend.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3 434

That could be due to all of the human colonies we have on mars for example as well as Jupitor's moons.

There is plenty of evidence for alternative explanations to climate change.

So why are we not hearing them?

ANSWER: No money to be made.

I mean look at some of the truly outrageous projects given considered SERIOUS thought by proponents of global warming:

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8897

HOW MUCH do you think a project like that would cost and WHO DO you think is going to get the money for it?

It sure isn't the third world countries who are being asked to starve to death and endure this climate change.

There is no suggestion of planting more trees either as you can't make money off of planting trees. It costs too much.

I SEMLL A RAT.

-Hackus

-Hackus

Check out this link:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3 250

AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).

Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what they do with foreign communications.