Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

reply to post by Nathan-D


The oceans are absorbing less CO2 than they used to.

www.physorg.com...

After Mez apologizes and retracts those 2 falsehoods that he, no doubt, mistakenly interjected into the debate, I am curious to know his (and the other deniars) rationalization for ocean acidification:

www.sciencedaily.com...

Is that also a hoax/conspiracy?

The opinion I was referring to was this usual bigoted garbage from you….
‘Correct. Mez and 90% of the skeptics on here are not skeptical of the facts.....rather, they refuse to LOOK at the facts.’

‘If you read the debate between you and Melatonin carefully, you will see that he uses facts to dispute you...while you consistently grasp at straws to prove your point.’

Usual bigotry but water off a duck’s back none the less.

Fair enough if you don’t want to respond to my questions and feel that Mel has done enough, it’s your prerogative. It’s also my prerogative to consider that the reason you won’t is that either a) you know that it shows that the dataset is corrupt compared to the original Met office data (namely the deletion of the medieval Warming period) and will produce a drastically different scenario to the hockey stick of alarm or b) you have something else to hide.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
After Mez apologizes and retracts those 2 falsehoods that he, no doubt, mistakenly interjected into the debate, I am curious to know his (and the other deniars) rationalization for ocean acidification:

www.sciencedaily.com...

Is that also a hoax/conspiracy?

Yeah, I see that the article is incredibly contradictory as it’s statement in the 3rd paragraph openly contradicts the statement in the 7th…

‘Ocean acidification, which the researchers call the 'evil twin of global warming', is caused when the CO2 emitted by human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels, dissolves into the oceans. It is happening independently of, but in combination with, global warming.’

Somewhat contradicts251 million years ago and another wipeout 55 million years ago
‘The scientists say there is now persuasive evidence that mass extinctions in past Earth history, like the "Great Dying" of 251 million years ago and another wipeout 55 million years ago, were accompanied by ocean acidification, which may have delivered the deathblow to many species that were unable to cope with it.’

Thanks for pointing that out.

As for hoax/conspiracy, I have never stated that in any posts I have made or in response to any by you or Mel. I am unsure where you get that from or why you feel the need to fabricate such lies by that statement. I have simply had a different point of view. You seem to me to be suffering from delusional paranoia and I suggest that you seek professional help.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

The oceans are absorbing less CO2 than they used to.

www.physorg.com...

Ah, a scientist with a different opinion to Knorr. I have no problem with it, other than it’s a bit subjective, you know, analysing just the Carbon content of the ocean and not the airborne fraction like Knorr did to deduce a state of equilibrium. For instance this is a bit odd…

‘The model was then used to track all of the ocean’s water masses backward in time to when they last exchanged carbon dioxide with the atmosphere.’
Modelling again, not empirical data.
We reconstructed (what was that? Reconstructed? Go on) a year-by-year inventory of the manmade gas in the ocean from 1765 to 2008. (Oh I see! 243 years worth of reconstructed data. Quantity is not quality anyone?). This allowed us to identify trends in the uptake of human-generated carbon dioxide. (How? Doesn’t say how at all. It does say mathematical mumbo jumbo though or management speak, whatever you want to call it .. ‘…integrated ship-based data on the ocean’s temperature, salinity and chlorofluorocarbon, radiocarbon, oxygen and phosphate content to help us understand’)
And apparently we don’t need to know the actual circulation of the ocean in order to understand the invasion of manmade carbon within them.
That’s fine then, thanks. The science is settled.

Originally posted by melatonin
The Trick was actually deleting a whole bank of data as it contradicted the policy, namely the Medieval Warming period. Alas, it ceased to be Met Office data once the records were edited (deleted) so please stop referring to the data as such.

Originally posted by Mez353
Fair enough if you don’t want to respond to my questions and feel that Mel has done enough, it’s your prerogative. It’s also my prerogative to consider that the reason you won’t is that either a) you know that it shows that the dataset is corrupt compared to the original Met office data (namely the deletion of the medieval Warming period) and will produce a drastically different scenario to the hockey stick of alarm or b) you have something else to hide.

I guess you never bothered to check if you're confusing a number of denier's memes here? You need to work on your skepticism.

The Met office provide the observational station data that is used for the HadCRU temperature series (and others). CRU receive this original data and process to provide a robust series of temperature anomaly data. The data that CRU discarded was an copy of an archive of the original Met office data - they archive their processed data. This is not related to the 'Hockey Stick' of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes. This was the 'discarded' data referred to in one of your sources and you babbling about pharma data.

The 'trick' which was referred to in an email was simply bringing together the observational data and paleo proxies into one figure. Thus, proxies are indirect measurements of temperature, observational data is the direct measurements. When both overlap, it makes pure sense to use the observational data. Especially when a small number of proxies show the well-known 'divergence problem' - where proxies and observational measures diverge during the last 50 years. In scientific studies, this is clearly described and the divergence problem is well-established.

The MWP bugbear is predominately based on Mann, Bradley, and Hughes' work around 1998-1999. MBH were the first group to actually attempt combining a large number of proxies over a large region (northern hemisphere) to produce large reconstruction of temperatures over hundreds of years. Before then, the only real data used was a 'Central England' series produced by Lamb in the 1960s. It showed a nice chunky medieval warming period - however, the data was for one small region of the earth and only reached 1950. It was hand drawn and rather basic. The new large scale northern hemisphere proxy reconstruction (MBH1998) did not show such a pronounced MWP. Since then, deniers have perseverated about this decade+ old seminal study. More recent and robust proxy reconstructions effectively show the same thing, but with a bit more variation around the MWP; however, deniers seem to think repeating the same old canards about how the MWP was 'deleted' in a 12 year old study is of any great importance when the science has moved on considerably since then.

In sum, you have bastardised 3 different issues into a chimera of BS. Quite an achievement.

I’m getting the feeling that this thread is inhabited by people whose prime function is to vanquish informed assessment of local conditions with swaddling cloths of ignorance and prejudice instilled in them by what passes for higher education. You even considered the description I used of your childish behaviour (retarded) as an insult when it was just an adjective that adequately describes you mannerisms and insulting ramblings.

It’s not the ‘trick’ that’s generating the fuss by the way, it’s the term ‘hide the decline’. You focus on the word trick because you can explain that away as something genial, try explaining the words ‘hide the decline’.

Regurgitate biased claptrap all you want but the facts are out there. Try this…

‘The data that CRU discarded was an copy of an archive of the original Met office data - they archive their processed data.’

From the CRU web page
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The original data used to create its global temperature record has been lost!?

Not only is it now impossible to repeat the study – which is probably a good idea considering the furore and also as new information is learned continually-- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

Boy – homework – dog - ate

Originally posted by Mez353
I’m getting the feeling that this thread is inhabited by people whose prime function is to vanquish informed assessment of local conditions with swaddling cloths of ignorance and prejudice instilled in them by what passes for higher education. You even considered the description I used of your childish behaviour (retarded) as an insult when it was just an adjective that adequately describes you mannerisms and insulting ramblings.

Yeah, the term is often used as an insult. I know of a few recent trolls whose MO was the use of that term.

It’s not the ‘trick’ that’s generating the fuss by the way, it’s the term ‘hide the decline’. You focus on the word trick because you can explain that away as something genial, try explaining the words ‘hide the decline’.

It's the same issue. The decline is the divergence problem in a small number of proxies. I've already covered it. All these are are simple quote-mines which are used to misrepresent the issues to smear the researchers. The decline might be 'hidden' in the plot, but the divergence problem a well-known issue long discussed in the literature, and the merging of proxy and observational data is described in the relevant articles.

Regurgitate biased claptrap all you want but the facts are out there. Try this…

‘The data that CRU discarded was an copy of an archive of the original Met office data - they archive their processed data.’

Yeah, the discarded data was the original met office data. It says so in the quote from the CRU page.

From the CRU web page
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

And you decided to overlook the earlier comment:

These datasets (the latest being CRUTEM3 www.cru.uea.ac.uk...) have been developed from data acquired from weather stations around the world. Almost all these weather stations are run by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) and they exchange these data over the CLIMAT network, which is part of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) Global Telecommunications System (GTS).

They don't hold the original raw data, they archive their processed data. The original data was not produced by them.

The original data used to create its global temperature record has been lost!?

No, it's held at the places that produce it. The CRU is not a meteorological institute.

Not only is it now impossible to repeat the study – which is probably a good idea considering the furore and also as new information is learned continually-- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

Boy – homework – dog - ate

I think I'd trust the likes of CRU over someone like you.

No, it's not impossible to repeat the 'study'. The original data is held by the meteorological agencies. CRU obtain data from such agencies around the world. They process it to be used as a long-term temperature series. The processed data (i.e., their original data) is archived.

As I said, a number of pages ago: this is analogous to Bristol-Myers discarding a copy of an original dataset that they acquired from the FDA.

Whatever your game, you only show deniers to be ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and much less than the skeptics they deem themselves to be.

Suits me fine.

‘As I said, a number of pages ago: this is analogous to Bristol-Myers discarding a copy of an original dataset that they acquired from the FDA. ‘

No it’s not and you know it. The data was changed, the evidence was deleted when it should’ve been archived as it was now new data and now nobody can repeat the study. Otherwise they’d just go to the Met office and get the same data wouldn’t they? Or are you saying that the scientists can get the exact same data from the Met office, which is unadulterated and repeat the study? They can’t since the data set was modified and the parameters of the dataset that was modified have been DELETED.

Plus, they’ve been at it right across the globe, I draw your attention to mnemeth1’s post here which nobody debunked.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
NZCSC fraud:
icecap.us...

NOAA / NASA fraud:
pajamasmedia.com...

More NASA fraud in conjunction with the Australian climate centers:
www.climategate.com...

CRU climate model fraud, where some the source code is broken down:
www.americanthinker.com...

I have no game, I just don’t believe everything I hear in the news. What’s yours more’s the point?

I don’t think anything suits you fine, in fact I think you’re another drop out like The Liberator.

When you have time, can you please answer the questions that I directed at you?

e.g
Now show us the improved models please and the data sets used. Complete with Medieval Warming period re-inserted please. Could you provide an example of what that does to your hockey stick graph at all? I'd be very interested to discuss this with you.

Do you concur that using all available empirical evidence proves a point more conclusively than modelling?

And hopefully you’d respond with your thoughts on this…
Antarctica glacier retreat creates new carbon dioxide store:

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Miss, miss, Mez's eating in class miss! Okay, whatever. My point was I'd cited the reference to the site many times earlier, just missed one as it was late. Are you a traffic warden by any chance?

It was more like "miss miss, this ignorant troll is just spamming the thread with material he thinks argues his case but only details ludicrous scenario's and doom and gloom beyond even the warming alarmists".

That is what I was going for.

Anyway, you've contributed 3 posts, two having a go at my lack of citation for a site I've referenced alot in previous posts and one other. That makes 2 out of 3 posts that could be deemed OFF TOPIC. Thought I'd point that out, seeming as your a stickler for the rules. Getting battered in The Ashes getting to ya?

edit on 5/12/2010 by Mez353 because: to nitpick

What are you are Off topic post warden.

I would have actually discussed the topic, but all you do is cut and paste dude.
Play times over Mez, back to kindy mate, paste is in the draw, but you'll need to ask sir for the scissors.
I'll let you get back to arts and craft quote mining.

The Ashes hey.

You know the you are losers when you count a draw as a win.
Lame.
Its not actually the Ashes anymore anyway, seeing as the English cricket team is actually South African now.
Ouch.

You still around? Thought you’d crawled back under your rock. Whatever. Dude.

Your argument with me is because I missed a citation in one post, from a site I’d linked to in previous posts. It was corrected by the mods and I held my hands up and observed I’d made an oversight. I am truly, truly sorry. I won't do it again. Not ever. Ok?

Originally posted by Mez353

‘As I said, a number of pages ago: this is analogous to Bristol-Myers discarding a copy of an original dataset that they acquired from the FDA. ‘

No it’s not and you know it. The data was changed, the evidence was deleted when it should’ve been archived as it was now new data and now nobody can repeat the study. Otherwise they’d just go to the Met office and get the same data wouldn’t they? Or are you saying that the scientists can get the exact same data from the Met office, which is unadulterated and repeat the study? They can’t since the data set was modified and the parameters of the dataset that was modified have been DELETED.

lol, CRU do not run weather stations all over the world.

They are actually a pretty small research institute at the University of East Anglia. The obtain the raw station data in the way outlined above (via the climate network and other agencies). All the other agencies collect the station data in the same way (NASA-GISS etc). CRU even pay for such data.

They use the raw station data to produce robust temperature series (e.g., HadCRUT). The raw data is held by the Met offices etc (i.e., the sources and most on the climate network). They hold, as they say, the 'value-added' data. Which is their original processed data.

Which would be analogous to the FDA giving Bristol-Myers a copy of some data, with BMS processing into another set of data. They then delete the original data from the FDA. The FDA would be holding the original copy. The original data still exists. Which refutes your original claim.

For example, CRU outline what the original raw data is here:

What are the basic raw data used?

Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.

www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

The raw data is the station data provided by agencies across the world. In sum, they did not produce it. lol

So now you seem to want to shift goalpost a bit with this bit:

They can’t since the data set was modified and the parameters of the dataset that was modified have been DELETED.

What are you on about here? The Met offices have the original data. CRU hold the processed data. The data is held - both original and processed. Scientific papers discuss the processing (e.g., Jones & Moberg, 2003).

You could readily acquire the original data and attempt the gridding and homegenising process yourself (try the GHCN data). Indeed, the likes of CRU, NASA-GISS, and NOAA all have slightly different approaches and original source data and still produce quite similar outcomes. And some people outside these research institutes have done it themselves and replicated the temperature series.

Your chasing shadows. But, again, this is because you're merely parroting stuff from denier websites with no real understanding of the issues.

Dude, why would I want to bother discussing anything more with you when you show yourself to be so intellectually dishonest? There's no point. You can't even accept that you were bastardising a number of different issues into some mutated BS, lol.

You can’t even read mate. I never said that they ran weather stations all over the world so where’d ya get that from loony? I said they changed data that they got from the met.You need to see someone about your problems. Fast.


www.americanthinker.com...
'And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.


And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.'


Another melatonin delusional statement which is legally incorrect
'Which would be analogous to the FDA giving Bristol-Myers a copy of some data, with BMS processing into another set of data. They then delete the original data from the FDA. The FDA would be holding the original copy. The original data still exists. Which refutes your original claim. '


Er, no. Not at all. The processed data becomes new data in the eyes of the FDA, IMB, BMC et al. And thus must be retained for the qualifying retention period. This adequately backs up my point that the CRU should’ve retained their processed data, using your analogy. If in doubt check the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR Part 11).

And why do you keep repeating the term intellectually dishonest? Are you looking in the mirror as you say it?

Bottom line: CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.
www.americanthinker.com...

So how about addressing those questions and your thoughts on the British Antarctic Survey’s findings on flourishing phytoplankton mopping up CO2 as glaciers retreat? Or do you want to nitpick until I give up with my intellectual dishonesty?

Originally posted by Mez353
You can’t even read mate. I never said that they ran weather stations all over the world so where’d ya get that from loony? I said they changed data that they got from the met.

www.americanthinker.com...
And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

Sorry, not biting.

One approach of deniers is to fling BS like a monkey. In the evolution domain, they call it the Gish-gallop. Indeed, this is what you have done continually in this thread. I noted it earlier, even as I was answering each of the parroted claims you copypasted from websites, you responded by ignoring my responses and just piling more BS into the thread.

I did some BS-ploughing earlier with the summary post. Back to the actual original point of contention (indeed, it seems like you prefer original points to disappear much like you accuse CRU of)...

You said they had deleted the original data.

and that data was deleted as it was not 'required anymore'. I wok in the pharma industry, if we did that we'd be shut down.

What I am referring to, and need no help with thankyou, is the "accidental" deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones and the bogus data aggregation procedure used by scientists that "renders the [temperature readings] totally meaningless," and the fact that the University of East Anglia is still denying that there was any wrong doing.

The Trick was actually deleting a whole bank of data as it contradicted the policy, namely the Medieval Warming period. Alas, it ceased to be Met Office data once the records were edited (deleted) so please stop referring to the data as such.

The original data used to create its global temperature record has been lost!?

Not only is it now impossible to repeat the study...

The data was changed, the evidence was deleted when it should’ve been archived as it was now new data and now nobody can repeat the study. Otherwise they’d just go to the Met office and get the same data wouldn’t they?

Er, no. Not at all. The processed data becomes new data in the eyes of the FDA, IMB, BMC et al. And thus must be retained for the qualifying retention period. This adequately backs up my point that the CRU should’ve retained their processed data, using your analogy. If in doubt check the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR Part 11).

No, the original data has not be lost. They discarded the original raw data which is merely a copy of data elsewhere. They hold the processed data. I'll say that again: they do hold the processed data. It was in the quote you posted from the CRU website. Look, here:

Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

So, lets summarise these apparently complex issues for you:

Original raw data held at met offices et al.
Processed data held at the CRU

Both sets of data are available, none has been ultimately 'deleted' - just copies of raw data. Indeed, you can download the CRU processed data here:

www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

lol

This is an example of what CRU did to develop the new data:

in the subfolder "osborn-tree6mannoldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline."


But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."
www.americanthinker.com...

If I was to do something like this I would introduce the original data set and explain in each program how the algorithm works, something that CRU didn’t do. CRU also disregarded the original data. In the original data they cherrypicked what they wanted to look at and ignored the Medieval Warming period (circa 950 to 1250) as it didn’t fit the policy of proving global warming is due to industrialisation. I and many others would have no problem with that if they had stated that instead of employing a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’.

Now Mel, Libby et al, what is your problem with that?

Gotta go, gotta get home and feed and bathe the kids. If they were your kids I wouldn’t feed or bathe ‘em, and starve and drown ‘em just to give ‘em a chance.

Originally posted by Mez353
This is an example of what CRU did to develop the new data:

*copypasta*

Now Mel, Libby et al, what is your problem with that?

You are still confusing different issues.

The mxd issue is related to proxy reconstructions.

The deleting data canard is related to the HadCRUT series.

Why would I want to bite on a different issue? You still are unable to differentiate your memes.

Addition of CO2

The addition (or removal) of CO2 to a solution does not change the alkalinity. This is because the net reaction produces the same number of equivalents of positively contributing species (H+) as negative contributing species (HCO3- and/or CO3--).

Wikipedia

I know I am going to regret asking this! Is it not the premise that the oceans are getting less alkaline (i.e. more acidic) yet this appears to be saying that co2 has no effect?