Additional Factors in Climate Change 8

[CajunCenturion]

Cloud changes may lower global temperature



Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jmw]

Well, this should be good for some funding.
I note not that this is one of the mechanisms that might weaken the case for AGW but:

This may represent a “negative feedback” mechanism – a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it.

This sort of cagey comment seems to be increasingly used by researchers who want to do honest science but can't risk being cut off at the knees for possibly hinting at a denial of AGW and the vast sums being spent to prop up that scenario.

Oh, and if true it also sets the stage for the position that this is one of the factors that is "masking the true extent of global warming".
In other words, even if we find the temperature dropping year on year a degree or two at a time and we are beginning to freeze to death, woolly mammoths are returning etc. it will still be "masking the true extent of global warming".
Except for those who have turned the page and now deal with abrupt or catastrophic climate change and for whom this would be just another manifestation of man's damage to the environment.... i.e. also caused by man's use of fossil fuels.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

The issue is NOT 'Global Warming' but rather 'Climate Change'!

And if the 97% of the scientific community which accepts the idea of 'Climate Change', was instead presenting data showing that mankind's impact on the environment was going to result in 'Global Cooling', I suspect that we would be seeing the same consortium of groups and organizations claiming that it was NOT true. For them, the issue is NOT whether the Earth is warming or cooling but rather that the status quo is being challenged. They fear that whatever the proposed next steps are to be, that it will be at a cost that will disproportionably impact them as opposed to others, whether they be industries, nations, or political factions.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[jmw]

By the way, we have now moved beyond the two Climategates into Fakegate where Dr Peter Gliek, chairman of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics (ironically enough) is reported to have stolen the identify of a Heartland member, set up a fake email address in that name, accessed documents for their board meeting, didn't find "a smoking gun" and fabricated a memo which said what he wanted it to say and then circulated it to all the usual suspects in the AGW camp.
Most of which he now seems to have admitted.
He has now resigned that post "for personal reasons", the usual excuse when caught out. We are just waiting for the "stress" excuses to come out.
The new chairperson has been tasked with the usual whitewash but may find it more difficult to achieve this time around.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[rb1957]

there's money to be made in climate change, whether it's AGW or not, and that'll bring out the lowest slime-sucking leeches around.

both camps sling mud at the other, claiming hidden agendas and hidden bank-rolls.

unfortunately the real state of affairs (the truth ?) is only knowable in hindsight, and is interpreted by both camps as victory for their belief/cause.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Perhaps this will bring a better appreciation for what Noah had to put up with ;-)

Of coruse, Noah had the advantage of knowing that God was on his side, which I suspect that in this case, many of the zealots (on both sides) believe that as well (as demonstrated by at least a couple of the GOP presidential wannabes).

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[rconnor]

jmw,

Do you know how climategate started? Someone hacked the servers to steal the emails. Now, what Dr. Gleik did was stupid and wrong but it's funny that you, in the same sentence, promote the one and bash the other. Also, you can't state that Dr. Gleik forged a document to discredit the Heartlanders as this is not a fact. See the article here or here.

Good comment by rb1957, it just becomes increasingly difficult to have a rational debate when both sides get into foolishness like this. It's just as bad as US politics...ok, maybe not THAT bad

But the article was interesting and shows the complexity of the situation.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> it's funny that you, in the same sentence, promote the one and bash the other.
Which sentence is that?



Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rconnor]

"By the way, we have now moved beyond the two Climategates into Fakegate where Dr Peter Gliek..."

The sentenace uses Climategate as a credible means of discrediting one side and then uses Fakegate as a discredible means of discrediting the other side. Both means of aquiring the information were similar, so if you use the "ends justifies the means" for Climategate then you should apply the same ideology to Fakegate. If the information obtained, unethically, by Fakegate shows an underhanded attempt to skew the debate then it should be just as credible (or discredible) as the emails in climategate. The only difference would be forging of documents which is speculation.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> The sentenace uses Climategate as a credible means of discrediting one side and then uses Fakegate as a discredible means of discrediting the other side
Maybe. You're reading a lot more qualitative judgment into that sentence than I am. I don't define 'Climategate' as a credible means. We can agree to disagree on that.

==> Both means of aquiring the information were similar, so if you use the "ends justifies the means" for Climategate then you should apply the same ideology to Fakegate.
I will take issue with that because of the fundamental difference between the veracity of the two ends. While in no way supporting the hacking efforts of climategate, the discovered e-mails themselves were not fabrications. In fakegate, not only are the means questionable, but the ends is also a fabrication.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[beej67]

Naw, ya think?

I've been telling my AGW pals that water vapor is a negative feedback mechanism instead of a positive feedback mechanism for a decade, due to cloud albedo.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

Sorry, but with respect to the so-called 'forged' document in this most recent case, we only have the word of the group whom the document would be detrimental to, that it's a "fabrication". Hardly what one would call an independent reliable source.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[jmw]

Rconnor, let me respond to your implications regarding what you think I said (I didn't judge the methods one way or another, but it appears this is a standard response) with this quote:

Even more pathetic is the sanctimonious open letter by Michael Mann and six colleagues who suggest that Heartland merely got its comeuppance for cheering and publicizing the release of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that sparked the Climategate scandal.

I think this question is answered by the Heartlands institute president explicitly enough.

1) The Hadley centre is a publicly funded organisation which was evading FOI requests and actively suppressing dissenters.
The Heartland Institute is not a publicly funded company and not required to release any information whether under FOI or not.

2) Climategate released a tranche of genuine documents that should have been released under legitimate FOI requests.
It is not yet established if they were hacked from an outside source or whether an insider released the information.
It seems Dr Gliek didn't find what he wanted and the so called “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” provides some clues to his being the author . Not just identified but readily recognised and called on it. I'm sure you are aware of FBI programs that will confirm this. Or not as the case may be. Seems rather an amateurish fake to me. There are other clues in other blogs such as Dr Gliek being named in the memo but not the usual suspects. (Vanity?)

3) We have no idea of the credentials of the Climategate hacker.
Dr Peter Gliek is/was chairman of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics
Somehow, his behaviour is inconsistent with that position.
(Incidentaly, he is one of the signatories here.)

Gleick and his co-author Randy Townsend of the AGU wrote that advancing scientific work to create a sustainable future would only be possible if scientists had the trust of the public and policymakers. And that trust, they added, "is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do."

(my emphasis).

4) The response of the "Deniers" to climategate was extreme caution until they had validated the authenticity of the material released.
The response of the AGW community and its websites was quite the converse.
So yes there are parallels but not the ones you would like.
Both show the extent to which the AGW camp is corrupted.

But I am not offended by the implications that I somehow have dual standards. This is exactly the attack made on Heartlands by the AGW camp and defended by them.

What we now look to see is how the new Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics deals with the behaviour of its former chair.
In point of fact they should perhaps be as harsh as most courts are on corrupt policemen, school teachers who have liasons with students etc. In other words they have abused their position of responsibility.

An article in TIME Science has Gliek admitting how he obtained the various documents which is condemned even without considering if he forged the memo or not.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Yes, when you read the memo it says:

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.

Yet to most lay people they know of Mann, and a couple of his sidekicks and they may struggle to recall the name of the guy at Hadley. But Gliek? Isn't he that composer of weird East European muzik?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

It's all about money, and that all.

Believe what you want to believe, but every suggested solution puts money into someones pocket. And everyone who wants the statis quo is trying to avoid spending money needlessly.

So put your beliefs on the table and state how much money you want to milk, or how much you want to avoid spending.

 

[zdas04]

The referenced article was absolutely not about anyone abusing their position or their science. Let's call that particular pissing contest a draw and either move on or move it to the thread on that subject.

The article was about an observation based on preliminary data. The researchers were very careful to make it clear that their observation was simply an observation and their hypotheses was also clearly stated. This is an example of good science in my opinion. It doesn't leap to conclusions. It doesn't twist itself to support an irrelevant hypotheses. It just states what was observed. What changed to allow the new measurements. Preliminary conclusions. And finally it defines the path forward to prove or disprove the preliminary conclusions. A very good piece of work, well reported.

I have to point out one statement from the article

“Clouds are one of the biggest uncertainties in our ability to predict future climate,” says Professor Davies. “Cloud height is extremely difficult to model and therefore hasn't been considered in models of future climate. For the first time we have been able to accurately measure the height of clouds on a global basis, and the challenge now will be to incorporate that information into climate models. It will provide a check on how well the models are doing, and may ultimately lead to better ones.”

Computer models never prove anything. When something as fundamental as cloud formation or cloud height is "just too hard" and must be excluded from the model, I have to say "how in the world are we making economic policy based on these inadequate, incomplete, horribly course models?". The models have a place in focusing future efforts (like the efforts described in the referenced article), but climate models have absolutely no place in public policy.

Without climate models, AGW goes back to being an hypotheses that can be tested in conventional ways without the hype, scare mongering, and bad public policy. With climate models we get regulations that are aimed at crippling whole economies in the name of stopping climate change (as though that were either possible or desirable).

David

 

[jmw]

I beg to differ.
There was a time when it would not have been considered necessary to include the statement I quoted.
The research has, this stage, little to do with warming or not. It is just one mechanism.
There is nothing wrong with the science only with the new environment within which honest scientists must work.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com