Slashdot Mirror
New Batch of Leaked Climate Emails
New submitter kenboldt writes "Someone going by the alias 'foia' has dropped a link to a zip file containing thousands more emails similar to those released in 2009. There are apparently many more which are locked behind a password, presumably waiting to be released at some time in the future."
The University of East Anglia has released a brief statement indicating that the emails were probably obtained during the 2009 breach and held back until now as "a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy."
Right, because last time around, it turned out that there was a big conspiracy and lots of people got fired and no one believes in global warming any more.
oh, wait, that's exactly what didn't happen.
Climate scientists are providing context to the leaked emails here: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=9931
Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.
That's a nice article you linked there. Richard Muller? Maybe you bothered to follow up with what he actually found? The rest of Slashdot did and I think you might be interested in it.
My work here is dung.
Global warming is a done discussion. Governments and corporations are already moving to adapt -- except for a few parasites like the Koch brothers (who are funding much of the anti-science "research" that you are lapping up so eagerly), who simply need to be pried off our nation's neck and burned like the blood-ticks that they are.
Except the Koch brothers latest efforts were less than fruitful: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process
IPCC reports are fact-based? Really?
Like the way lots of movie dramas are "based on actual events", probably.
The amount of incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation is approximately in balance at all times. In the absence of a greenhouse effect, the Earth would need to be about 255K to produce enough outgoing longwave radiation to remain in balance. Due to the greenhouse effect, not all of the outgoing radiation makes it to space. To maintain the balance, the Earth must be warmer than 255K so that enough outgoing longwave radiation makes it through the atmosphere and into space. That's why average temperature on Earth is actually around 288K. All other things equal, if the greenhouse effect is increased, the Earth must warm to reach a new balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation. This is as close to fact as science can get, and isn't really up for debate.
The only legitimate argument against warming caused by increased greenhouse gases is that negative feedbacks will decrease the incoming solar radiation. That can primarily be accomplished by clouds and aerosols, neither of which are well understood or predicted by models. However, even with the uncertainty about negative feedbacks, it is very likely that increasing greenhouse gases is resulting in a warming of the Earth.
Just because there is poor agreement on the regional impacts of a warmer Earth does not mean the Earth isn't warming. The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is largely due to human activities. It's a fact that the model human lifestyle produces large amounts of carbon dioxide. The increase in greenhouse gases is very highly correlated to industrialization.
This is an environmental issue. The preponderance of evidence is very strongly favors that humans are mostly responsible for the warming of the Earth that has already occurred in the past decades and that the Earth will warm at a faster pace in the future if current trends continue.
We should be very concerned. The regional climate changes will likely place greater strain in some areas on the availability of essential resources to support the human population. It is not out of the question that the overall impacts of such a warming could place enough strain on resources that the Earth would be unable to support a human population of seven billion people and growing. Nobody really knows what the impacts would be, but those concerns are hardly unfounded.
How many thousands of years have whole forests burned due to natural causes? My guess would be enough to release way more greenhouse gas than our burning of fossil fuels.
Your guess would be wrong. The difference being that the carbon is forests is carbon that is already in the carbon cycle. If forests don't burn they eventually decay and release the carbon back into the atmosphere anyway. The carbon from fossil fuels is carbon that has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for in most cases 100's of millions of years or more. So it is carbon that was not in the carbon cycle until we added it back in. The proof of the fact that your guess is wrong is that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has never been above around 300 ppmv for millions of years but since the advent of human burning of fossil fuels it has risen to 390 ppmv in a bit over 200 years. That is unprecedented in the existence of the genus homo.
The proof that the 30% increased in CO2 concentrations is from burning FF's is found in the ratio of C12 to C13 isotopes in the CO2.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Climate scientists don't make much money.
Lying climate change deniers like the Koch brothers and many thousands of their other petrofuel and polluter cronies do make millions.
You are a lying fool.
--
make install -not war
Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers
I agree.
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement
Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#skepticism
it's in my head
ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show "ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change."
And that article is just the tip of the iceberg. There's also Exxon's funding of the infamous Heartland Institute, a "libertarian" anti-science denial shop. Heartland used to deny smoking caused cancer but unsurprisingly switched to denying global warming when their sponsorship changed. Exxon used to fund Heartland directly, but now funds them indirectly through conservative groups like the Scaife and Olin foundations.
It's hard for me to imagine how an educated person in 2011 could have ever been ignorant of how oil companies fund global warming denialism, but now there's no excuse.
Coal and limestone are a part of the overall carbon cycle but they are not particularly active in it on human time scales. The active parts of the carbon cycle are the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. The active part of the carbon cycle has been in relative balance for over a million years, cycling between around 190 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The last time CO2 was as high as it is now (390 ppmv) was over 15 million years ago.
Crustaceans don't use carbon dioxide directly to build their shells. They do use it indirectly though by eating other organism's that got it directly. CO2 dissolved in water becomes carbonic acid which is detrimental to shell forming organisms so it doesn't help.
The colonization of the land occurred around 550 million years ago, once atmospheric oxygen levels got high enough for the ozone layer to form and block ultraviolet light from the Sun.
Deserts are there because they lack of water. It has nothing to do with low CO2. I doubt there is any condition the Earth has been in since life colonized the land where there weren't deserts (or at least areas of low precipitation) on the planet. It's built into the physics of the atmosphere.
I don't get this assumption that increasing CO2 automatically means more plant growth. Do you have any science behind that? I know excess CO2 helps some plants to grow but not others. CO2 is not the only thing that affects plant growth. Water, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus as well as a number of others are all necessary. The current plant life has evolved under the current CO2 levels and I don't think you can definitively say that increased levels means an explosion in plant growth.
In some ways carbon is priceless (and I'm not talking about diamonds). It is the basis of all life as we know it. Without carbon we wouldn't be here. But it needs to be in its place.