contrails

On Dec 23, 5:09*am, Tom Gardner wrote:

A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
public let alone their peers.

That's an irrational overreaction.

Naw, it's a pretty rational reaction from someone smart enough to
smell a con job (and whether or not you think it's a "con", you will
certainly agree that it's a mighty big job being asked of the average
citizen) and not knowledgeable enough in a technical field to evaluate
several hundred lifetimes worth of "science".

It's been pretty clear for a decade that the AGW guys have been fixing
their science around a pre-ordained result. Sorry state of affairs.

Happily, even some of the true believers are starting to wake up.
Here's one environmentalist's summary: http://davidcrowe.ca/GlobalWarming.html

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Dec 24, 2:59*am, T8 wrote:
Happily, even some of the true believers are starting to wake up.
Here's one environmentalist's summary: *http://davidcrowe.ca/GlobalWarming.html

This guy seems like a very sensible chap. I disagree with him on two
points ("fair" trade vs free trade, and the safety of nuclear power)
but I'm sure we could have a good clean healthy debate on those
subjects. On the rest I'm with him 100%.

I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums
and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The
AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this
in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to
contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much
about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2.

Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't
hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model
that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just
background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models
data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and
I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting
skeptics into hardened deniers.

Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon
enough!

tuno

On Dec 23, 2:34*pm, Tuno wrote:
I saw a most interesting program on the Science Channel last night
about the sun, and it discussed the 11-year cycle of sunspot minimums
and maximums, and their apparent effect on the earth's climate. The
AGW proponents would gain some credibility if they would address this
in their models (and moisture too), but it that does not seem to
contribute to the results they want. They don't even want to talk much
about methane, with 20x the greenhouse capability as CO2.

Tom you say "There's none so deaf as them's won't hear" but I don't
hear anyone from CRU explaining the source code in their climate model
that embeds data within the model. To me, the emails are just
background noise next to this inconvenient revelation; making models
data-aware is pure cheating. The media silence on this deafening, and
I am listening. This is the kind of thing that turns fence-sitting
skeptics into hardened deniers.

Oh, spring (and the warming that comes with it) can't come soon
enough!

tuno

I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later
worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology
Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing
global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it.

Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at
NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and
discussed their results with them.

Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the
earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at
night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is
warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at
night.

Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate
models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing
warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for
the past century.

I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs
so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write
them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing
great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are
professional skeptics.

The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every
country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best
prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to
predict the future, they know the result is imperfect.

Even the most professional among them are still human beings
passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on
occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the
moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind.

The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models
ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the
degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant.
Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the
most recent data seeming to confirm them.

The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the
1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher,
no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show
tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was
harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous
public 'debate'.

Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists'
to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it
does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words
'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is
enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still
get wide publicity.

In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released
cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate
change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for
the Russian oil industry.

The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer
reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend
to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find
Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format.

The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the
interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's
lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of
global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential
election.

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels

Refreshing response-
No paranoia, no political agenda.
Just thoughtful insight.

Thanks Bill-

Dan Thirkill



"bildan" wrote in message
...

I was a weather forecaster with the US Navy in the 1960's and later
worked with Dr. Paul MacCready at his first company, Meteorology
Research, Inc. Dr. MacCready was warning about CO2 buildup causing
global warming in 1965 - he was very concerned about it.

Since I now fly out of Boulder, CO, I know some of the researchers at
NCAR and have sat through presentations on global warming and
discussed their results with them.

Do contrails warm the earth or cool it? They do both by cooling the
earth in the day by reflecting sunlight back into space and warm it at
night by reflecting heat back to the surface. The net result is
warming since contrails tend to dissipate in the day and persist at
night.

Solar radiation effects on climate are indeed included in climate
models - they are some of the best data they have. Far from causing
warming, it appears the sun has been slightly cooling the climate for
the past century.

I once sold software for the supercomputers used at the national labs
so I know a bit about big computer models and the people who write
them. I am incredibly impressed by these researchers. They are doing
great work under trying circumstances. As scientists, they are
professional skeptics.

The IPCC is a group of outstanding scientists from almost every
country in the world assembled by the UN and asked to make their best
prediction they could using available data. As with any effort to
predict the future, they know the result is imperfect.

Even the most professional among them are still human beings
passionate about their work. They don't suffer fools gladly and, on
occasion, can choose some unfortunate language in the heat of the
moment. Please read the stolen emails with that in mind.

The climate models are some of the most complicated computer models
ever built and there are several. While the models disagree about the
degree of future warming, they all agree that it will be significant.
Some you don't hear about call for truly catastrophic warming with the
most recent data seeming to confirm them.

The whole climate 'debate' reminds me of the "tobacco wars" of the
1970's and '80's when the big tobacco companies funded any researcher,
no matter how disreputable, if it looked like the results might show
tobacco was harmless. Even if they couldn't prove tobacco was
harmless, they could confuse the issue and reduce it to a raucous
public 'debate'.

Today big oil companies are funding the same disreputable 'scientists'
to create publicity saying either global warming won't happen or if it
does, it's not caused by burning their product - in other words
'debatable'. The amount of money available for this 'research' is
enormous and although the results are never peer reviewed, they still
get wide publicity.

In fact, one substantial rumor has it the people who stole emails from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, then released
cherry picked examples just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate
change conference in Copenhagen, were former KGB agents working for
the Russian oil industry.

The real research conducted at universities and national labs is peer
reviewed before publication in reputable journals. The articles tend
to be too complicated and dense for main stream news outlets who find
Big Oil's prepackaged "news bites" more suited to their format.

The past US president and his party are tightly aligned with the
interests of the oil industry and would seem to be acting as it's
lobby in Washington. The danger for them is that dramatic effects of
global warming may be clearly visible by the 2016 presidential
election.

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels

On Dec 23, 6:11*pm, bildan wrote:


So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
extremely alarming.


I regard that point as honestly debatable. And all the hot air out of
Al Gore to the contrary, I do not think we've really had that debate.
I'd like to see this chap (Richard Lindzen, MIT prof.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...917025400.html
get a little more airplay as I think he's done some excellent work and
tough luck that the results don't play well with the current political
agenda. You can hardly call this "sniping at the edges".

Don't doubt for a moment that NCAR is full of earnest, smart, hard
working guys. And I think that if pressed over a couple of beers that
they will probably admit that their models are full of problems.
That's part of what Lindzen's work is all about: getting the
atmospheric data that will validate (or not) these models. Mostly
"not" at the moment, it appears. And until they *are* validated, the
models are not useful for prediction, full stop.

One thing I've wondered about rather idly, that I have not seen come
up in discussions on the topic of AGW, is what the AGW proponents
think about the cycle of the ice ages, and if these cycles are
supposed to have become irrelevant. My home has spent the majority of
the last million years under a *lot* of ice and snow. In fact, that
should probably be regarded as the normal condition here in what we
now call New Hampshire, USA. Do these guys *really* believe that the
cycle of the ice ages has been broken? If so, does their model
predict the end of the Holocene and a return to an ice age in the
absence of anthropogenic CO2? If not... pray tell, *why* not?

I don't work in this area. I have a business, well two of 'em
actually, to run, a family to take care of and a sweetheart of a curvy
beautiful 24 year old glider to fly in such spare time as I have, so
about all *I* have time to do on AGW is "snipe at the edges". In so
doing, I hope to plant seeds of rational thought in others' minds such
that we become as a whole a bit more resistant to being hearded about
like so many sheep.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

So, do I 'believe' in global warming? *It's not a matter of belief -
it's a matter of what the data is saying. *What is available now is
extremely alarming.

Bill Daniels

Hear, hear! Great note, Bill.

I've worked in disaster preparedness planning for 38 years, starting
as a geographer/climatologist. The data started to talking to us in
the mid-70s when we started noticing tree rings and glacier cores. The
only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the
truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent
eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest,
genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:32:14 -0800, wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:28�pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0912...2009.1157.html

In part, given the massive fraud shown by the information that has come
out of the UK's East Anglia University's Climate Research Center, I can
not believe a word of this article.

If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
fraud, you're quite wrong.

Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.

It may be 100% correct it may be 100% false, I choose to believe it is
false. Any conclusion about climate that is based on the idea of man
made global warming now must be viewed with a very skeptical eye.

Consider that human populations have grown at least four-fold since the
start of the Industrial Revolution (in the UK from an estimated 12-16
million to the current 66 million) and the energy used per person has
increased much more (average then: their own muscle power + cooking fuel
+ a draft animal if they were well off. Average now round 20-30 MW/year
in the West). Bearing in mind that nothing like this has ever happened
before, can you really stand there with a straight face and say this
energy use explosion can have no possible impact?

A large part of the climate research comunity has lost its validity.
They need to start over and be truly transparent and honest for a long
time before they will ever, if ever, regain the trust of the general
public let alone their peers.

The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
precisely what they should be doing.

The data for the world's climate, whatever its present state and future
trend, is too importent to be subject to the politicaly driven
manipulation that has occured over the last several decades.

Quite. How about telling that to the fossil fuel companies, OPEC and the
USGS - all of whom have been just as forthcoming and truthful about the
side effects of burning carbon compounds that were last above ground
during the Carboniferous era as they were about lead or the tobacco
companies were about smoking.

If you don't believe the science behind global warming you'd better
believe the coming energy crisis. Realise, too, that almost everything
being talked about and worked on to reduce carbon emissions, from
renewables to reducing energy use, will also serve us in good stead when
fossil fuels become unavailable to the average person.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Dec 24, 4:31*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
fraud, you're quite wrong.

Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.

That may or may not be true.

What is without question true is that if the data can't be practically
reproduced by others or made available then you can't base science on
it.


The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
precisely what they should be doing.

It's been done.

I haven't been totally keeping track, but it seems that at least the
raw data for NZ, Australia (e.g. Darwin), and Russia looks quite
different to what the CRU has been using, via one or both of using
only the subset of stations that show warming, or the raw and
published data showing a long series of unexplained adjustments with
the effect of lowering old temperatures and raising recent ones.

This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed
totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a
"hockey stick".

What I'd like to know, is what will be the impact felt by us as
sailplane pilots. Since this is RAS, and there are content cops
patrolling the internets.

Will we:

Be lining up to buy electric sailplanes?

Selling our 2-stroke powered sailplanes because the 2-stroke will be
vilified?

Finding it harder and harder to justify aero-towing, due to fuel costs
and the perception that a bunch of "rich" guys wanna play.

Be looking at winching, for real this time?

Be riding our bikes to the airport?

I won't pretend I can participate in the science part of the debate,
but when it comes to what "pain" are we going to feel in order to
implement whatever is deemed necessary to "reduce" glabal
war.........er, I mean Climate Change, I sure have some concerns to
talk about!

Brad