Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure

[MugenOne]

Why are people so afraid of global warming? All we are doing is releasing CO2 that was trapped during the Paleozoic era back to the atmosphere. During the Paleozoic era, there was an explosion of life on Earth. There were massive algae blooms in the ocean (that’s how oil was formed). Ocean was teemed with fish of gigantic proportion. It rained endlessly for days. The water droplets were the size of a golf ball. Plants like ferns and cattails turned barren land into lush forest.

 

[lynnvinc]

I understand.

But my point was that the shenanigans of “climategate” have called the entire subject into question. When scientists fudge the data, drop data that doesn’t support their pre-determined conclusions, etc., it is completely understandable that the general public would not trust their conclusions.

There’s a lot of work to do, work that needs to be done accurately and transparently, to overcome the damage that has been done by those that have played fast and loose with the facts on this subject.

No one is saying the CRU scientists have fudged their data or dropped it. They do happen to use a method of not including areas for which there is no data, while the GISS extrapolates to those areas lacking data from areas with data. The CRU also get data from proprietary sources, ones which they legally cannot pass on to other (but people who want those data can themselves pay for the data and get it).

And the CRU scientists were found to be not as forthcoming in sharing their data under FOI, but since it is a very small team that is overworked, and many of the requests were spam requests just to harass them so they couldn’t do their work, it is understandable they got a bit testy about filling all the FOI requests. That was the only shortcoming found about them. All the other accusations have been disproven; they are only put out there by unreliable bloggers and media sources, just to further cause problems and dissuade people from mitigating GW.

However, even if the CRU scientist had been found to be in the wrong (which is impossible, science their data jive pretty well with 1000s of other scientists’ data), there is the data from many many other sources that supports GW findings.

Aside from tree ring proxies, there are proxies from stalactite/stalagmites, chironomids, foraminifera, cosmogenic isotopes, conodonts, varves, oxygen isotope ratios in clam shells and other organic matter, and ice cores.

These jive pretty well, and climate scientists find better success in using several measures, not just one – see for example glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Thomas_et_al_2010.pdf

So I’m not too sure what you are talking about. The CRU and other climate scientists and their works have been investigated in recent months, and they have been cleared of any wrong-doing.

Again, we need to do the right thing in mitigating this problem, rather than pointing our some minor flaws by a few scientist that in no way overturn the huge bulk of science on GW that is now out there.

If people wish to learn more about GW, they can go to the top science journals and read about it. That’s better than taking seriously someone’s false accusations on some disreputable blog or media source. (Newspapers make many many more mistakes than climate scientists do – many unintentional, some intentional.) Better to trust peer-reviewed science than blogs and news sources.

 

[Catherine_D]

I’m sure you’re very well meaning as well as sincere. But I feel like we’re talking about two different things, two different situations.

The scientists involved in Climategate committed fraud. If there are others in the scientific community that support their findings, and have true, verifiable scientific data to support it (as opposed to manufactured data or data that has been clipped of anything that tends not to support it) then they need to renounce the fraud that was committed, renounce the lies, and put forth their findings using solid, transparently collected data.

This is a bit like the “boy who cried wolf”. Once someone is caught it a lie, it is hard to trust them again. Likewise, the scientists in Climategate have been proven to not just be “testy”, they’ve fudged the data, dropped data that didn’t fit their pre-determined conclusions, etc. Unless and until these sorts of irregularities are excised from the process of data collection and Climate science in general, no one is going to believe the claims. There have just been way too many problems to take it seriously.

There needs to be honest scientists doing genuine data collection, and not massaging the data or otherwise “fixing” it to achieve some pre-determined conclusion. To do so is not science, it’s fraud.

 

[lynnvinc]

The scientists involved in Climategate committed fraud.

They did not. Pure and simple. It’s just a big lie.

I suppose if those scientists (I assume you’re referring to Dr. Phil Jones) had time and money on hand they might just sue those liars for slander. Too bad the liars have Exxon, Koch Industries, Peabody, and other fossil fuel industry $billions to fight any such lawsuits. Too bad the liars are able to sway innocent people into believing their lies.

Too bad it is impossible these days to speak truth to power, but those big guys can crush us like insects…and that’s what they’re doing…keeping us addicted to fossil fuels, and the profligate use of such, when over the past 20 years the U.S. could have reduced such use by 75% without lowering productivity or living standards, and likely staving off the economic depression we are now in.

Why take risks, when mitigating them saves us so much money, plus reduces so many other problems? It is beyond anything I could ever have imagined. 20 years ago when I started mitigating (we’ve reduced our GHG emissions by 60%+), I sincerely thought the problem would be half solved by now, but instead our U.S. emission have gone up by 20%, rather than declined by at least 30-50% (cost-effectively). Where is religion and morality when we really need it?

 

[Catherine_D]

I don’t appreciate being called a liar.

The facts clearly show that fraud was committed. I’m sorry if you can’t see that. But that is no reason to call someone names.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

Lynn first of all the investigation was conducted by Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and of the wind energy company Falck Renewables. Does he have vested interest in promoting AGW hysteria? Yes he does.

Secondly, you never responded to my post rebutting your claim that nobody was out to destroy the careers of scientists who are skeptic of AGW.

Finally, the data to support AGW was cherry-picked, not manufactured. The tree-ring study which is the foundation for the entire AGW craziness, since it conveniently makes the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age disappear and accentuate warming in the 20th century,** has been debunked numerous times by peer-reviewed studies** that have completely ignored by the IPCC since they don’t give results that the UN wants to hear. The same dozen trees in the same study show up time after time in the work of AGW alarmists. Are they having that much trouble finding more trees to correspond with their ‘findings’?. The planet is full of them! See the following:

co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_laptevsea.php
Studied the distributions of different species of siliceous microflora (diatoms), calcareous microfauna (foraminifers) and spore-pollen assemblages found in sediment cores retrieved from 21 sites on the inner shelf of the southern and eastern Laptev Sea… In addition, “judging from the increased diversity and abundance of the benthic foraminifers, the appearance of moderately thermophilic diatom species, and the presence of forest tundra (instead of tundra) pollen,” they write that “the Medieval warming exceeded the recent ‘industrial’ one.”
co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_nrussiantreeline.php
This work revealed, in their words, that “temperature increases over the past century are already producing demonstrable changes in the population density of trees, but these changes have not yet generated an extension of conifer species’ limits to or beyond the former positions occupied during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP: ca AD 800-1300)…”
co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_avamriver.php
The authors developed a history of trunk radial growth increment of larch trees in the middle reaches of the Bol’shoi Avam River on the northern edge of the Putoran Plateau, central Taimyr for the period AD 886-2003, which they found to be correlated with summer air temperature. This work revealed a period of time from the start of the record to approximately AD 1200, when inferred temperatures were generally much greater than those of the final decades of the 20th century.
co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_polarurals.php
This work revealed that “a large number of well-preserved tree remains can be found up to 60-80 meters above the current tree line, some dating to as early as a maximum of 1300 years ago,” and that “the earliest distinct maximum in stand density occurred in the 11th to 13th centuries, coincident with Medieval climatic warming.” Since Marzepa cites many studies that conclude that “increases in tree-line elevation, and associated increases in tree abundance within the transient tree-line ecotone, are associated with extended warm periods,” and that “the vertical gradient of summer air temperature in the Polar Urals is 0.7°C/100 m,” we conclude that the Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.
co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_lakelehmilampi.php
The authors extracted two sediment cores from Lake Lehmilampi in eastern Finland, after which they identified and counted the approximately 2000 annual varves contained in each core and measured their individual thicknesses and mineral and organic matter contents…Consequently, because they note that (1) “the thinnest varves of the last 2000 years were deposited during [the] solar activity maxima in the Middle Ages,” specifically AD 1060-1280, that (2) the low deposition rate of mineral matter in that period “implies mild winters with a short ice cover period during that time with minor snow accumulation interrupted by thawing periods,” and that (3) the concurrent “low accumulation of organic matter suggests a long open water season and a high decomposition rate of organic matter,” it follows that the solar-induced Medieval Warm Period of AD 1060-1280 in that part of the world was likely the warmest period of the past two millennia.
co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_savonlinna.php
The authors applied x-ray microdensitometry to subfossil samples of Scots pine trees collected from the bottom sediments of six small lakes within the southern boreal forest zone near the city of Savonlinna in south-eastern Finland, which covered the period AD 673-1788. This work revealed the occurrence of both the Medieval Warm Period (AD 975-1150) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1450-1625), between which periods there was a dramatic decline in tree-ring maximum density, indicative of a significant drop in summer growing-season temperature.
co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_voring.php
August surface temperatures of the eastern Norwegian Sea’s Voring Plateau were derived from planktic stable isotopes and foraminiferal assemblage concentrations. The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1200 and 1500 and was as much as 3.3°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

Yes I call it corruption. Malfeasance and opportunism on an epic scale. Crooks, thieves, and charlatans.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Too bad it is impossible these days to speak truth to power, but those big guys can crush us like insects…and that’s what they’re doing…keeping us addicted to fossil fuels, and the profligate use of such, when over the past 20 years the U.S. could have reduced such use by 75% without lowering productivity or living standards, and likely staving off the economic depression we are now in.

The fact that the United States is so far behind the rest of the western world when it comes to alternative energy and fuels never ceases to amaze and appal me. Polticians pledge billions to “research” alternative energy and fuels that we already know work, have been implimented in Europe for decades, and that we already use in the United States.

Unfortunately, the conspiracy to keep the United States trapped in the energy dark ages doesn’t end at fossil fuel companies but extends even to the American alternative energy industry. Enercon, a German company, became a victim of U.S. Windpower Inc. after the American company committed corporate espionage, stole Enercon’s wind wheel design, patented it in the U.S. then sued to keep Enercon from selling it’s wind turbines in the United States. Enercon has been building 7.5MW wind turbines for years in Europe but we’re stuck with wind turbines only capable of half that capacity thanks to U.S. Windpower Inc.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

The dark ages? Spain literally collapsed its economy pursuing ‘green energy’. It lost 2.2 regular jobs per green job gained.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power,which are charged to consumers in their bills, translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000.

For what? So they could claim to not be in the ‘dark ages’? We should aspire to such lowly heights? In the middle of a particularly nasty recession? Ever?

 

[estesbob]

The fact that the United States is so far behind the rest of the western world when it comes to alternative energy and fuels never ceases to amaze and appal me. Polticians pledge billions to “research” alternative energy and fuels that we already know work, have been implimented in Europe for decades, and that we already use in the United States.

Unfortunately, the conspiracy to keep the United States trapped in the energy dark ages doesn’t end at fossil fuel companies but extends even to the American alternative energy industry. Enercon, a German company, became a victim of U.S. Windpower Inc. after the American company committed corporate espionage, stole Enercon’s wind wheel design, patented it in the U.S. then sued to keep Enercon from selling it’s wind turbines in the United States. Enercon has been building 7.5MW wind turbines for years in Europe but we’re stuck with wind turbines only capable of half that capacity thanks to U.S. Windpower Inc.

There is not a country in the world that gets more than a smidgen of their energy needs from so-called alternative energy sources. There will not be a country in the foreseeable future there will be able to do so. We have a more than adequate supply of fossil fuels and they will continue to provide our energy needs for at least the next century. The harnessing of fossil fuels has been a boon to mankind and has bought about a higher standard of living for just about everybody on the face of the earth.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The scientists claiming man-made global warming did not make ANY mistakes.

What they did was deliberately concoct a carefully contrived forgery. It’s as if they were counterfeiting hundred dollar bills and when caught in the act, claiming they had “made a mistake”.

Read this detailed analysis of the hockey stick fraud, which was another deliberate fake … which the IPCC used as the centerpiece of their recommendations for quite a while.

climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

These scientists should go to prison for life, just like Bernie Madoff did. They stole a lot more money than Madoff.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There is not a country in the world that gets more than a smidgen of their energy needs from so-called alternative energy sources. There will not be a country in the foreseeable future there will be able to do so.

That simply is not the case.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t appreciate being called a liar.

The facts clearly show that fraud was committed. I’m sorry if you can’t see that. But that is no reason to call someone names.

I’m not calling you a liar. I’m referring to those who know very well they are lying thru their teeth about this. The facts very clearly show there has been no fraud on the part of climate scientists whatsoever. For one thing, why do the data of the supposed fraudulent scientists jive so well with other data from other sources? Unless those liars are suggesting a massive conspiracy of 1000s of scientists from around the world, their claims are incomprehensible. That would be the biggest conspiracy theory of all time. And considering how competitive scientists are, and skeptical, it’s quite unimaginable that 1000s of scientist would be in some secret cahoots with each other on some grand conspiracy. I know some of the scientists, and they are forthright, honest people.

If at all there is any blame to be put on the scientists or science, it is on the nature of science for being so averse to making claims (their avoidance of the false positive), on an issue that is so harmful and threatening to life on earth. It’s not the scientists’ fault. That’s just the nature of science. But we laypersons should understand that and do what we can to mitigate this problem, even if we are not convinced about the science. JPII didn’t need 95% confidence that there was a serious problem to admonish everyone to start mitigating back in 1990, and I didn’t need it either. (Science did reach 95% confidence on AGW by 1995, and the science has been gaining strength ever since.)

I am sorry if you thought I was referring to you.

 

[lynnvinc]

The fact that the United States is so far behind the rest of the western world when it comes to alternative energy and fuels never ceases to amaze and appal me. Polticians pledge billions to “research” alternative energy and fuels that we already know work, have been implimented in Europe for decades, and that we already use in the United States.

Unfortunately, the conspiracy to keep the United States trapped in the energy dark ages doesn’t end at fossil fuel companies but extends even to the American alternative energy industry. Enercon, a German company, became a victim of U.S. Windpower Inc. after the American company committed corporate espionage, stole Enercon’s wind wheel design, patented it in the U.S. then sued to keep Enercon from selling it’s wind turbines in the United States. Enercon has been building 7.5MW wind turbines for years in Europe but we’re stuck with wind turbines only capable of half that capacity thanks to U.S. Windpower Inc.

I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if fossil fuel industries were behind this. I know that they buy up a lot of the technology, such as solar and battery tech. I’ve heard they shelve the really good ideas. That’s what happened to the Ovshinsky battery that would have vastly improved the electric car – shelved by Chevron & Texaco. See youtube.com/watch?v=1J5f9x_RfHI

 

[lynnvinc]

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

I think a commentor on that Daily Express article says it well (see dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 ):
Your headline “Climate change lies exposed” may cause people to conclude that the report exposes deliberate deception within the IPCC. In fact it says no such thing. It is critical of IPCC procedures, which is quite different.

You state that the IAC ‘found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming’. This is also untrue. What the report actually says is “authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020.” Still criticism, but not as damning as your sweeping statement attempts to suggest.

You quite the “independent climate scientist Peter Taylor”. This would be the Peter Taylor who is a marine biologist, holds no qualifications relevant to climate science, and has not had one peer-reviewed paper published on the subject. He also states that … "in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, (ie biology) I was an imposter. I am not a scientist … I have never ‘done’ science.

The “climate change sceptic David Holland”, presumably introduced as a pretence of providing “balance”, is a retired engineer,

While the IPCC may be guilty of being sloppy, your article is quite another matter. It is deliberately fabricated to suggest that the IAC report says something quite different to what it actually does, puffed up with a few quotes from self-appointed experts to add an appearance of credibility. If that isn’t a lie, I don’t know what is.

The more relevant question, however, is: do you?

Posted by: Topcat49

To get past this “who is lying?” issue, I think it just prudent to follow what the popes (BXVI even after “climategate” & “glaciergate”) have been telling us. Mitigate, do what we can to reduce this problem.

That means becoming as energy/resource efficient/conservative as possible, and going on alt energy when feasible. One can do this in the developed nations down to at least 75% GHG reductions while saving money and not lowering productivity or living standards.

I catch myself every now and then wasting energy or resources. The latest one is my dryer vent was clogged up. It must have happened during vacation – some squirrel or bird packed stuff in the vent to the outside. It was taking a very long time for the clothes to dry, until I got the brilliant idea 2 months later – check the vent (which also had a lot of lint in it). And I thought I’d been smart to shake out the wet clothes first, clean the lint trap each time, and use those dryer balls that help clothes dry faster, when there was a more major problem.

There are a myriad of things we can do that cost nothing or are cost-effective. We just need to put our heads and hearts into it. Not only to mitigate AGW (which some here are dead certain is not happening), but also to save finite resources for future generations, and reduce other harms, such as local pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, and money waste. In fact I’ve always lived within 1 to 2 miles of work ever since the 1970s, when I became cognizant of using up finite resources, so I don’t even count that in my “reducing GHG emissions by 60% (cost-effectively) since 1990.”

I think our best investment was in a low-flow showerhead that saves us half of the hot water (and we don’t even notice the difference) – that $6 showerhead has saved us $2000 over the past 20 years (I did a bucket/stop watch test, it was a one-half reduction). Water requires energy to pump and heat it. Also I later found out that the water table in our city wells had gone down by 800 feet since first use 100 years ago – so it is also saving a precious resource.

 

[estesbob]

ITo get past this “who is lying?” issue, I think it just prudent to follow what the popes (BXVI even after “climategate” & “glaciergate”) have been telling us. Mitigate, do what we can to reduce this problem.

e.

Since there is no problem there is nothing for me to mitigate.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That simply is not the case.

You may be right, if 1% of the total is your idea of a viable energy program.

Actually, renewable sources such as windmills and solar cells are nothing more than boutique / gadfly energy sources. They both require massive energy storage, which DOES NOT EXIST. They require spinning reserves. They are EXPENSIVE to install. And the equipment doesn’t last very long; it’s not robust. And they require a LOT of maintenance.

Denmark has it and it simply does not fill their energy needs. It has not replaced any existing “fossil fueled” sources. Without the existing system for a backup, they would be in the dark.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You may be right, if 1% of the total is your idea of a viable energy program.

You are WAY off the mark. Renewable energy accounts for 98.25% of total energy consumption in Norway, 85.4% Brazil, 44% in Sweden, 30.5% in Finland, 29.9% in Latvia, 28.5% in Austria, 23.2% in Portugal, 20.4% in Romania, 19.1% in Estonia, 18.8% in Denmark, 15.3% in Lithuania, 15.1% in Slovenia, etc. And by the way, over 10% of energy generated in this country is done with renewable sources.

They both require massive energy storage, which DOES NOT EXIST…

It does in Europe. The United States needs more advanced power grids capable of storing more energy such as those in use in Europe instead of the antiquated ones we use now.

 

[estesbob]

You are WAY off the mark. Renewable energy accounts for 98.25% of total energy consumption in Norway, 85.4% Brazil, 44% in Sweden, 30.5% in Finland, 29.9% in Latvia, 28.5% in Austria, 23.2% in Portugal, 20.4% in Romania, 19.1% in Estonia, 18.8% in Denmark, 15.3% in Lithuania, 15.1% in Slovenia, etc. And by the way, over 10% of energy generated in this country is done with renewable sources.

It may not exist in the United States but is DOES EXIST elsewhere. The United States needs more advanced power grids capable of storing more energy such as those in use in Europe instead of the antiquated ones we use now. Despite your claims, wind turbines can and do produce a substantial amount of energy. So much so in fact that they overloaded Oregon’s power grid.

And the overwhelming majority of the “renewable” energy in these countries comes from hydroelectric dams-a technology that is been around for about 100 years and is heavily used in United States also. The other renewable sources i.e. Sun, wind, bio fuels account for just a miniscule amount of the “renewable energy” in these countries .

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You are WAY off the mark. Renewable energy accounts for 98.25% of total energy consumption in Norway, 85.4% Brazil, 44% in Sweden, 30.5% in Finland, 29.9% in Latvia, 28.5% in Austria, 23.2% in Portugal, 20.4% in Romania, 19.1% in Estonia, 18.8% in Denmark, 15.3% in Lithuania, 15.1% in Slovenia, etc. And by the way, over 10% of energy generated in this country is done with renewable sources.

It may not exist in the United States but is DOES EXIST elsewhere. The United States needs more advanced power grids capable of storing more energy such as those in use in Europe instead of the antiquated ones we use now. Despite your claims, wind turbines can and do produce a substantial amount of energy. So much so in fact that they overloaded Oregon’s power grid.

Oh, stop!

[Are you, by any chance, taking credit for hydro? The greenies would not approve; wild rivers and all that.]

Pretty much all the feasible hydro sites are taken already and wild river advocates are trying to get the dams taken down.

Hydro was done by old fogies under non-green criteria.

Wind power is subject to extreme peaks and, then, stoppages. When you have a peak, then the power cannot be absorbed BECAUSE THERE IS NO STORAGE. That’s why Oregon had that oversupply problem. They could not shut down the base load power system, so they had to find a way to deal with the oversupply. If there was storage available, they could just STORE the energy.

[If you are under the impression that storage for solar and wind power exists on a national basis, then please identify it.]

[The only POTENTIAL technology for energy storage is the use of pumped storage. You build a reservoir on the top of a hill and pump water up to it using surplus power or off-peak power. Then you can release the water during peak hour demand times. But the environmentalists are generally opposed to pumped storage facilities. Oregon and Washington would be almost ideal for pumped storage because of the high hills surrounding the Columbia River, etc.]

From Wiki:

At the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 159.2 gigawatts (GW).[1] Energy production was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage;[1][2] and is growing rapidly, having doubled in the past three years. Several countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration (with large governmental subsidies), such as 20% of stationary electricity production in Denmark, 14% in Portugal and Spain, 11% in Republic of Ireland, and 8% in Germany in 2009.[3] As of May 2009, 80 countries around the world are using wind power on a commercial basis.[2]

Danish coal consumption for electricity did not decline from 1999 to 2007 and is nearly the same as 1981.

And Denmark gets bailed out by being able to buy electricity from Sweden and Norway which get 30% and 68% respectively of their electricity from hydro.

And Denmark can also use Swedish and Norwegian hydro as their storage. But they have to export power to do that. While they import coal to meet an essentially static electric demand. Denmark has held electricity consumption to be flat since 1981.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And the overwhelming majority of the “renewable” energy in these countries comes from hydroelectric dams-a technology that is been around for about 100 years and is heavily used in United States also. The other renewable sources i.e. Sun, wind, bio fuels account for just a miniscule amount of the “renewable energy” in these countries .

That isn’t the case for a number of these countries. Biomass accounts for 27% in Brazil for example and it’s probably the largest untapped energy source in the United States. 175MILLION TONS/385 BILLION POUNDS of food ends up in landfills every year in the United States and there are untold tons of cropwaste that is left to rot in farmers fields; all of which can be used to produce a substantial amount of energy both in their own right and in the capture of methane in the energy production process.