• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Climategate


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#151 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 25 December 2009 - 09:45 PM

It is these reports and researchers that should be criticized with other sources.


i'm not about to go digging through your newspaper quotes for the primary sources they supposedly reference, fact check whether or not the quotes have anything to do with said primary sources and then look for other sources that do or don't refute whatever the real data and conclusions are. Cite the primary sources yourself if you'd like us to have a look at them instead of cherry picked random quotes from some sciency guys in the popular press.

#152 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 25 December 2009 - 09:53 PM

a process called thermal expansion


yes, maxwatt was already kind enough to give us some references regarding what to expect from thermal expansion.

#153 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 25 December 2009 - 10:03 PM

Your own opinons seems to based on the assumption or model that the rate of change will not change in future.


no, not at all. I just don't think the rate of change will increase by a factor of 15 this century, which is what is required for a change of around 1 m in sea level rise in a century. I do expect some sea level rise, just not enough to really matter that much. Greenland is certainly on the balance melting at about 1/10,000th of it's volume per year. All the non antarctic non greenland ice in the world totals less than 1/10th of that present in greenland. Antarctica is also absorbing about .1 mm of sea level rise a year through the thickening of the east ice sheet.

All this is in the sources I've already cited.

Let me ask you. What should we do about it?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#154 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 December 2009 - 01:57 AM

Your own opinons seems to based on the assumption or model that the rate of change will not change in future.


no, not at all. I just don't think the rate of change will increase by a factor of 15 this century, which is what is required for a change of around 1 m in sea level rise in a century. I do expect some sea level rise, just not enough to really matter that much. Greenland is certainly on the balance melting at about 1/10,000th of it's volume per year. All the non antarctic non greenland ice in the world totals less than 1/10th of that present in greenland. Antarctica is also absorbing about .1 mm of sea level rise a year through the thickening of the east ice sheet.

All this is in the sources I've already cited.

Let me ask you. What should we do about it?


Well, there is the possibility of a very sudden release of ice into the sea from Greenland. The geologic record from the last interglacial is not so precise as to distinguish sudden transient events, so far it only gives long term averages. I understand there is some indication in coral records of rapid fluctuations, but the interpretation of the data is not certain. It is possible there will be a one meter rise over the next century, and a significant part of it may be rather sudden. And again, maybe not. The behavior of large blocks of melting ice resting on bedrock, lubricated by streams of melt-water flowing to the sea is poorly understood, and is most probably a chaotic system: i.e. one which cannot be described with precision, only with statistical probabilities: if the same thing happens twice, the results will be different each time. As Yogi Berra allegedly said: some things are hard to predict, especially the future.

While we are already losing ice sheets in the Antarctic, it does not contribute to sea level rise as that ice is already in the ocean. An ice cube melting in a glass does not raise the level. If the West Antarctic glaciers begin falling into the ocean that will be another thing, but so far, no. It is being watched.

There's not much we can do about it, and I think the decision of what strategies will be pursued is largely in the hands of the Chinese who vetoed anything stronger coming out of Copenhagen. I do hope they don't choose to shoot massive quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, as I expect the unintended consequences are likely to be objectionable. Using some tropical regions as carbon sinks (paying Brazil to maintain forests) may be pursued. Adding nitrogen to soils to increase carbon retention is a recently discovered possibility. It is still going to get hotter, and the seas will continue rising. If our coastal cities are to become like Atlantis, it will take a few centuries.

Getting back to climategate, from what I have been able to ascertain, no data was actually destroyed, 95% of the data the models are based on is publicly available from other sources, and the mathematical "trick" that was criticized was adjusting the data to account for the non-linear effect of temperature on tree ring growth. Despite the brief furor in the press and the continuing noise on the web, the long term effect on climate science research will be nothing.

#155 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 26 December 2009 - 04:04 AM

Despite the brief furor in the press and the continuing noise on the web, the long term effect on climate science research will be nothing.


What you seem to fail to realize is that "continuing noise on the web" is the continual gathering of more and more evidence that current AGW models are not only faulty, but so deliberately faulty that it calls into question the entire peer review process of scientific publication, and is neither "dying down" nor "being ignored"

The "press" is in the process of marginalizing itself by daily providing evidence of exactly how biased and politically and corporately controlled it is. The fact that "climategate" made so little impression in the MSM is one of the signs of how little unbiased reporting they do anymore. More and more highly intelligent, highly educated, and extremely rational people are continuing to point out how damaging the released e-mails are to not only climate panic mongering, but to science itself, because by attempting to pass off such blatant tampering as "proper science" the AGW movement is undermining the very foundations of the scientific method.

You may breathe a sigh of relief that "climategate" is out of the news, but I'm seeing signs that it has created a rather massive backlash against AGW that you are trying desperately to ignore.

As that article I posted pointed out, Science is not, and never has been about CONSENSUS.

#156 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 December 2009 - 10:41 AM

Despite the brief furor in the press and the continuing noise on the web, the long term effect on climate science research will be nothing.

(elision -- see above post for content.)
More and more highly intelligent, highly educated, and extremely rational people are continuing to point out how damaging the released e-mails are to not only climate panic mongering, but to science itself, because by attempting to pass off such blatant tampering as "proper science" the AGW movement is undermining the very foundations of the scientific method.

You may breathe a sigh of relief that "climategate" is out of the news, but I'm seeing signs that it has created a rather massive backlash against AGW that you are trying desperately to ignore.

As that article I posted pointed out, Science is not, and never has been about CONSENSUS.


What part of my statement are you challenging?

"no data was actually destroyed, 95% of the data the models are based on is publicly available from other sources, and the mathematical "trick" that was criticized was adjusting the data to account for the non-linear effect of temperature on tree ring growth."

How does this "undermine the very foundation of the scientific method"?

Edited by maxwatt, 26 December 2009 - 10:42 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users