They're not shocked to discover that they don't know everything about the world.
They're shocked to discover the Arctic Phytoplankton blooms appear to be so much larger than previously believed, having been measured mostly by satellite that doesn't see them through the sea ice.
Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”)
You've completely missed the possibility of group-think within a tight community of people for whom professional diligence, competency and quality, critical workmanship have been substantially weakened by a tribal quasi-religious zeal to save the human race.
Tight community?
Science is competitive, not a community activity. (Although the community certainly benefits, if it is clever enough to use the science).
And there have been over 100,000 scholarly papers written on climate science... most in the last 5 years.
That's a lot of output for a tight community don't you think?
Many people might think that there are diverse people from all over the world working and publishing on the subject.
There a number of reasons to be highly skeptical of the AGW cabal. For one, there is such a thing as an AGW cabal, that was targeting CO_2 (and oil) long before there was any evidence or models at all that suggested that it was a problem.
I strongly suspect that this is wrong.
Evidence of CO2 causing a problem was available since the late 50s. There was a scientific consensus since the late 70s.
Who is in this AGW Cabal, and how did it get a hold on every scientific organisation of national or international note?
It is at this point perfectly clear that the AGW cabal have tampered with data, cherrypicked data, and cooked up fits designed to minimize or eliminate "problems" for the theory, like the medieval optimum and little ice age.
Except that all investigations into such matters have shown that not only is it not perfectly clear, its patently false.
Everybody knows that Mann's infamous hockey stick graph is wrong at this point...
Unless this "everybody" person has even a passing acquaintance with science. Nature magazine (you won't know what that is, will you) wrote "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph" in response to the NRC (you won't know who they are either) report that affirmed Mann's results. (Which have since been reproduced many times).
The truth is that at best we do not really know if CO_2 is a major influence on climate
That might be the case if we read only industry propaganda. But the greenhouse effect is no secret to science.
At the moment, the global temperature anomaly is 0.1C BELOW the thirty year running mean (and has been for a couple of months now).
Using the Hadcru data, I get 0.058C above the 30 year mean.
Whose data are you using to get this 0.1 below?
So yes, global warming is real, but it is entirely possible that its cause is, and has been in the past, the Sun. Not CO_2.
There are vast number of independent ways by which it can be shown that the current warming is due to greenhouse gasses, and is not due to the sun.
For one thing the stratosphere is cooling. The sun warms the whole atmosphere, from above. However the greenhouse effect traps heat low in the atmosphere leading to this cooling.
For another the North Pole and the Antarctic Peninsula are the fastest warming parts of the globe. The sun's effect is strongest where it's light is most direct... in the tropics. However the CO2 greenhouse effect overlaps with the H2O greenhouse effect so its effect is greater where absolute humidity is low.
For a third thing, the warming is happening more at night. The sun warms things when it is shining. However the greenhouse effect slows the rate of heat loss, without affecting the rate of heat gain as much, so the greatest effect would be seen at the coldest part of the day.
Similarly and for a fourth thing, winter temperatures are warming slightly faster than Summer ones.
For a fifth, the temperature response due to CO2 can be calculated, such as has been done in this paper. It turns out that the warming is anthropogenic.
Warm weather is good. Plants grow. People eat.
Already less than they would if there were no global warming:
No, he's saying that, as a rationale for restructuring the entire planet's energy production, degraded WiFi capability is a pretty bad idea.
Then he didn't read the relevant report. Or, more likely, he's got an agenda, and so prefers to use a straw man than a sound argument.
The study recommendations for the ICT sector impacts paper are on page 24 of that summary, and not one of them is "restructure the entire planet's energy production".
There are many reasons for restructuring energy production. The cost of infrastructure changes of climate change is part of that calculation, and the cost of ICT infrastructure changes is part of that, and the increase in wireless infrastructure requirements and maintenance costs is part of that.
Overall its a pretty good idea.
Traditional medicine for prevention and getting people to regularly pay attention to their health and see doctors.
Also for wiping out the tiger, and keeping battery bears for their bile.
To say nothing of making people sick. TCM can have heavy heavy metal loads and higher than would be acceptable in any other food or medicine levels of arsenic.
I'm not aware of any problem with the IPCC except the claim in the TS that the glaciers would melt about 300 years early.
And I note that this is contradicted in the chapter, and does not appear in the SPM.
However, they certainly had the expertise to catch that error and should have. The failure of procedures is significant, but is only 1 error in a 3000 pages.
Noting it and correcting it is the correct approach. (Even though sooner would have been better.)
I don't see that this should raise questions about the rest of the IPCC's work, and certianly not raise suggestions that any of the science has been bad.
As for "yet another batch of bad science"... I think you'll find the science itself has been good.
That's not what he's been saying at all.
""The science still holds up" though, he adds. A follow-up study2 verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. "They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion," says Jones of his critics."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html
"But Jones is adamant that this doesn't actually change the conclusion of the analysis. In a subsequent paper, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2008, Jones verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant to the outcome."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/16/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change
Is there any explanation as to what causes earth's natural climate shifts? Do we have any idea if we are in a natural upshift or downshift? No and no. We don't know.
Well once you've got a climate model that works when you do hindcasts, you can do rough approximations of what would be happening if the Anthropogenic Forcing were removed.
And since it turns out that changes in forcing are about additive with respect to changes in the global mean surface temperature. (That is to say that (the effect of Anthropogenic forcing) plus (the effect of Natural forcing) is about the effect of (Natural forcing plus Anthropogenic forcing), you certainly can decompse climate change into Natural and Anthropogenic climate change.
There have been lots of papers that have done this, the most famous being External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings; Stott et al. Science (2000), but a much better one in terms of computing power was Meehl et al, 2004.
The answer to your question appears to be that we would be in a slight natural downshift.
There is no single AGW theory. There are thousands of them.
There's one physics behind AGW.
If you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, you increase the greenhouse effect.
There's different approaches to work out the complex consequences and how much this will affect the climate, but the basis isn't fractured. Nor rocket science.
I made nothing up. I am merely reiterating points of view I picked up elsewhere from well known sceptics such as Anthony Watt's, Monckton etc etc.
That could be related to why it looks like you made things up.
You'd do better to go to scientific as opposed to anti-scientific sources, on this subject and any other.
The IPCC did not make predictions about the temperature at the end of the decade. 10 years isn't long enough for the 0.1C per decade to emerge significantly above the noise and other influences.
Note though that this decade (2001-2010) so far is about 0.19C (give or take a few in the last decimal place dependin on whose temperature data set you use) warmer than the 90s.
0.19C according to the data set of the most skeptical of the teams that produces these temperature data sets, John Christy's of UAH.
When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".
I think that the main problem with the CRU FOI requests was that the source data had been entered into the computer system 20 years earlier, and the original paperwork had no longer been considered important to file. And for producing the science it is not. Although a good administrator would have foreseen the need for a sound paper-trail 20 years later, claiming that the scientists were "actively engaged" in hiding data is judging them too harshly.
What threats were made to what publishers?
And there has been no suggestion of academic fraud or of manipulating temperature data. (And so neither is it academically important that the source data is not all kept, because reproducing the temperature data is better if the data collection is also reproduced, in case there are biases in that. And NASA, NOAA, RSS and UAH are four bodies that also produce a global mean surface temperature data set. And they do support the HadCRU data.
Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.
And the suggestion that all over the world, PhD students are ignoring fame and fortune by overturning a paradigm because of funding that they are not yet getting is way too big a conspiracy theory to begin to accept.
Many of the highest profile climate scientists are academics with tenure. This mechanism of repression of research doesn't hold water.
The IPCC are about 14 paid staff. The preparation and peer review of the reports is done by volunteers, and they include a lot of very highly respected scientists.
here is a list of the contributors to the 2007 WG1 report. (That's the working group that you would get most climate scientists working on, because it is about the scientific aspects of climate change)... many of the other 80% would be working for the other working groups, which require expertise in development, disease, economics, engineering, and studies relevant to the subject areas of evaluating impacts and vulnerabilities, or costing and advising on amelioration techniques and technologies.
Notice how well cited these scientists studies are, especially considering that they volunteered their time to the IPCC rather than do their own work, which would better forward their careers. The top 500 generally have over 100 citations over their top 4 papers, and the top 200 look like they must be very renowned scientists, with hundreds of citations on their top papers.
I don't buy any claim that the IPCC contributors are lowly qualified.
Did you know that the Oregon Petition had Geri Halliwell (PhD) as a signatory, and that they have refused to give details of any verification process used?
Did you know that the Petition was sent out with a Paper, formatted to look like it was a peer reviewed paper from PNAS? (Including a fraudulent issue and volume number and publication date?)
Did you know that when Scientific American tried to contact a selection of the PhDs listed there were some that couldn't be found, some that had no recollection of the petition, and some that would not have signed it at the time that they were contacted?
If I were skeptical of global warming, I would be embarrassed to cite that petition.
An armed robber armed with a screwdriver deserves a shot a rehabilitation, and the society should give itself a shot at recovering some of the cost of his incarceration in income tax.
But when faced with starving, or having a child die of some expensively treatable disease, most people would commit armed robbery. They're not beyond rehabilitation, they're just desperate. (And here the brain scan may come in useful... because you can tell psycho from rehabilitatable, if it is from acquired brain damage.
But the argument for having the state be able to take away a citizen's freedoms, rather than their hands or life, is because police and prison guards already have too much power to maintain the personality you need to do that job well. Stanford_prison_experiment, perhaps.
Saudi Arabia and America because the state wields too much power over the individual, has a lot more police brutality, or police git problems than in the civilised west.
This paper reckons for one thing we will cause about an 18% to 35% reduction in biodiversity, depending on how we respond to the crisis, just in the next 43 years.
Of course this response points out that this could easily be a serious underestimate.
There are many many scientists, not funded by big-oil, who seriously doubt or outright disagree with the conclusion reached by a few high-profile scientists in regards to the veracity of man-made global warming.
No there's not.
And there are certainly none who have published a paper to that effect in a peer reviewed journal in the last 14 years.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not shocked to discover that they don't know everything about the world.
They're shocked to discover the Arctic Phytoplankton blooms appear to be so much larger than previously believed, having been measured mostly by satellite that doesn't see them through the sea ice.
I find the navigation the best of all the browsers on my phone.
Dragging the screen left and right to expose the navigation and tabs is an awsome use of real-estate, that I reckon will be copied.
If you want to go home or to a bookmark, open a tab and choose the page from the menu.
Sometimes I want to open an image in a new tab, which it doesn't do, but that's the only frustration I've got with ff on my mobile.
Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”)
- Skeptical Science
Tight community?
... most in the last 5 years.
Science is competitive, not a community activity. (Although the community certainly benefits, if it is clever enough to use the science).
And there have been over 100,000 scholarly papers written on climate science
That's a lot of output for a tight community don't you think?
Many people might think that there are diverse people from all over the world working and publishing on the subject.
Because science is the basis of our wealth and comfort. Attacking scientists is a social issue with broad and ugly consequences.
This is the correct response to the parent post.
But since I don't have modpoints, I have to post to agree.
Humans and trees don't have a net effect on atmospheric CO2 when the integral over their whole life and decomposition is taken.
It is digging up coal and oil from trees that lived 200,000,000 years ago that is altering the current climate.
The IPCC reports are pretty comprehensive, and written by scientists for the public.
Try them.
I strongly suspect that this is wrong.
Evidence of CO2 causing a problem was available since the late 50s. There was a scientific consensus since the late 70s.
Who is in this AGW Cabal, and how did it get a hold on every scientific organisation of national or international note?
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change
Except that all investigations into such matters have shown that not only is it not perfectly clear, its patently false.
Unless this "everybody" person has even a passing acquaintance with science. Nature magazine (you won't know what that is, will you) wrote "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph" in response to the NRC (you won't know who they are either) report that affirmed Mann's results. (Which have since been reproduced many times).
That might be the case if we read only industry propaganda. But the greenhouse effect is no secret to science.
SkepticalScience is a source of good information that is well referenced from the scientific literature.
If you don't agree with science, you should join a church, not claim that science is propaganda.
Using the Hadcru data, I get 0.058C above the 30 year mean.
Whose data are you using to get this 0.1 below?
There are vast number of independent ways by which it can be shown that the current warming is due to greenhouse gasses, and is not due to the sun.
... in the tropics. However the CO2 greenhouse effect overlaps with the H2O greenhouse effect so its effect is greater where absolute humidity is low.
For one thing the stratosphere is cooling. The sun warms the whole atmosphere, from above. However the greenhouse effect traps heat low in the atmosphere leading to this cooling.
For another the North Pole and the Antarctic Peninsula are the fastest warming parts of the globe. The sun's effect is strongest where it's light is most direct
For a third thing, the warming is happening more at night. The sun warms things when it is shining. However the greenhouse effect slows the rate of heat loss, without affecting the rate of heat gain as much, so the greatest effect would be seen at the coldest part of the day.
Similarly and for a fourth thing, winter temperatures are warming slightly faster than Summer ones.
For a fifth, the temperature response due to CO2 can be calculated, such as has been done in this paper. It turns out that the warming is anthropogenic.
Already less than they would if there were no global warming:
Worldwide, the authors report online today in Science, yields of corn and wheat declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared with what they would have been without global warming.
You seem to be very full of misinformation. Have you been reading Wattsup?
It turns out scientific sources provide better information on this topic than popular interest ones.
Then he didn't read the relevant report. Or, more likely, he's got an agenda, and so prefers to use a straw man than a sound argument. The study recommendations for the ICT sector impacts paper are on page 24 of that summary, and not one of them is "restructure the entire planet's energy production". There are many reasons for restructuring energy production. The cost of infrastructure changes of climate change is part of that calculation, and the cost of ICT infrastructure changes is part of that, and the increase in wireless infrastructure requirements and maintenance costs is part of that. Overall its a pretty good idea.
Traditional medicine for prevention and getting people to regularly pay attention to their health and see doctors.
Also for wiping out the tiger, and keeping battery bears for their bile.
To say nothing of making people sick. TCM can have heavy heavy metal loads and higher than would be acceptable in any other food or medicine levels of arsenic.
I'm not aware of any problem with the IPCC except the claim in the TS that the glaciers would melt about 300 years early.
... I think you'll find the science itself has been good.
And I note that this is contradicted in the chapter, and does not appear in the SPM.
However, they certainly had the expertise to catch that error and should have. The failure of procedures is significant, but is only 1 error in a 3000 pages.
Noting it and correcting it is the correct approach. (Even though sooner would have been better.)
I don't see that this should raise questions about the rest of the IPCC's work, and certianly not raise suggestions that any of the science has been bad.
As for "yet another batch of bad science"
That's not what he's been saying at all. ""The science still holds up" though, he adds. A follow-up study2 verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. "They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion," says Jones of his critics." http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html "But Jones is adamant that this doesn't actually change the conclusion of the analysis. In a subsequent paper, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2008, Jones verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant to the outcome." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/16/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change
Is there any explanation as to what causes earth's natural climate shifts? Do we have any idea if we are in a natural upshift or downshift? No and no. We don't know.
Well once you've got a climate model that works when you do hindcasts, you can do rough approximations of what would be happening if the Anthropogenic Forcing were removed.
And since it turns out that changes in forcing are about additive with respect to changes in the global mean surface temperature. (That is to say that (the effect of Anthropogenic forcing) plus (the effect of Natural forcing) is about the effect of (Natural forcing plus Anthropogenic forcing), you certainly can decompse climate change into Natural and Anthropogenic climate change.
There have been lots of papers that have done this, the most famous being External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings; Stott et al. Science (2000), but a much better one in terms of computing power was Meehl et al, 2004.
The answer to your question appears to be that we would be in a slight natural downshift.
There is no single AGW theory. There are thousands of them.
There's one physics behind AGW.
If you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, you increase the greenhouse effect.
There's different approaches to work out the complex consequences and how much this will affect the climate, but the basis isn't fractured. Nor rocket science.
I made nothing up. I am merely reiterating points of view I picked up elsewhere from well known sceptics such as Anthony Watt's, Monckton etc etc.
That could be related to why it looks like you made things up.
You'd do better to go to scientific as opposed to anti-scientific sources, on this subject and any other.
The IPCC did not make predictions about the temperature at the end of the decade. 10 years isn't long enough for the 0.1C per decade to emerge significantly above the noise and other influences.
Note though that this decade (2001-2010) so far is about 0.19C (give or take a few in the last decimal place dependin on whose temperature data set you use) warmer than the 90s.
0.19C according to the data set of the most skeptical of the teams that produces these temperature data sets, John Christy's of UAH.
Which is very strong warming in anyone's book.
When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".
I think that the main problem with the CRU FOI requests was that the source data had been entered into the computer system 20 years earlier, and the original paperwork had no longer been considered important to file. And for producing the science it is not. Although a good administrator would have foreseen the need for a sound paper-trail 20 years later, claiming that the scientists were "actively engaged" in hiding data is judging them too harshly.
What threats were made to what publishers?
And there has been no suggestion of academic fraud or of manipulating temperature data. (And so neither is it academically important that the source data is not all kept, because reproducing the temperature data is better if the data collection is also reproduced, in case there are biases in that. And NASA, NOAA, RSS and UAH are four bodies that also produce a global mean surface temperature data set. And they do support the HadCRU data.
Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.
I'm not aware of any funding falling through because of the line the research was taking in climate science. (And one BBC reported failed to find anyone with such a story in 2007)
And the suggestion that all over the world, PhD students are ignoring fame and fortune by overturning a paradigm because of funding that they are not yet getting is way too big a conspiracy theory to begin to accept.
Many of the highest profile climate scientists are academics with tenure. This mechanism of repression of research doesn't hold water.
How many of them were qualified? Take a look: http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/
The IPCC are about 14 paid staff. The preparation and peer review of the reports is done by volunteers, and they include a lot of very highly respected scientists. here is a list of the contributors to the 2007 WG1 report. (That's the working group that you would get most climate scientists working on, because it is about the scientific aspects of climate change) ... many of the other 80% would be working for the other working groups, which require expertise in development, disease, economics, engineering, and studies relevant to the subject areas of evaluating impacts and vulnerabilities, or costing and advising on amelioration techniques and technologies.
Notice how well cited these scientists studies are, especially considering that they volunteered their time to the IPCC rather than do their own work, which would better forward their careers. The top 500 generally have over 100 citations over their top 4 papers, and the top 200 look like they must be very renowned scientists, with hundreds of citations on their top papers.
I don't buy any claim that the IPCC contributors are lowly qualified.
Did you know that the Oregon Petition had Geri Halliwell (PhD) as a signatory, and that they have refused to give details of any verification process used?
Did you know that the Petition was sent out with a Paper, formatted to look like it was a peer reviewed paper from PNAS? (Including a fraudulent issue and volume number and publication date?)
Did you know that when Scientific American tried to contact a selection of the PhDs listed there were some that couldn't be found, some that had no recollection of the petition, and some that would not have signed it at the time that they were contacted?
If I were skeptical of global warming, I would be embarrassed to cite that petition.
There's all shades of grey.
... because you can tell psycho from rehabilitatable, if it is from acquired brain damage.
An armed robber armed with a screwdriver deserves a shot a rehabilitation, and the society should give itself a shot at recovering some of the cost of his incarceration in income tax.
But when faced with starving, or having a child die of some expensively treatable disease, most people would commit armed robbery. They're not beyond rehabilitation, they're just desperate. (And here the brain scan may come in useful
But the argument for having the state be able to take away a citizen's freedoms, rather than their hands or life, is because police and prison guards already have too much power to maintain the personality you need to do that job well. Stanford_prison_experiment, perhaps.
Saudi Arabia and America because the state wields too much power over the individual, has a lot more police brutality, or police git problems than in the civilised west.
This paper reckons for one thing we will cause about an 18% to 35% reduction in biodiversity, depending on how we respond to the crisis, just in the next 43 years.
Of course this response points out that this could easily be a serious underestimate.
No there's not.
And there are certainly none who have published a paper to that effect in a peer reviewed journal in the last 14 years.
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus positionHmm...
In this case the causation is given by the greenhouse effect.
If you increase the atmospheric concentration of heat trapping gasses, you trap more heat.
Of course in the case of Linzden, it is helpful to remember that he charges "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"