New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

???? Your problem is with those who made the adjustments, not those who pointed them out. Its for them to explain.

 

Yeah. One big issue I have is that this does not read like a study of academic quality at all. Like, not even close. They cite bloggers as sources


Bloggers? What you forget about climategate emails and 2.0?


.

 

Oh my that is troubling.

 

Does the IPCC cite bloggers as sources in their publications?

Also, I'm only somewhat familiar with climategate...mostly the "Mann's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" comments. Did the emails suggest they were using bloggers as sources? Because if the IPCC was basis their conclusions off bloggers then I'll repudiate that for sure.

 

They were using a Railroad Mechanical Engineer as their leader

 

Then I am throwing out the report and topic "New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data" as meaningless, as it is not backed up by evidence, there was no "bomb" dropped on the climate change data, and I continue to believe in Global Warming.

 

It is indeed exactly how Divine comedy says....
When it's up for others to explain why they adjusted it, does mean the critics can't claim the adjusted data is wrong, and no bombs have been dropped.

 

Nothing wrong with upper management with excellent management skills to let others -like researchers- do what they are good at. Just juvenile to not understand this.

 

Is it?
That happened in 2009.

He was reinstated in July 2010 with the newly created role of Director of Research, after a further review led by Sir Muir Russellfound no fault with the "rigour and honesty as scientists" of Jones and his colleagues, although finding that the CRU scientists had not embraced the "spirit of openness" of the UK Freedom of Information Act. The university said that the new position was not a demotion and would enable Jones to concentrate on research and "reduce his responsibilities for administration."

^^
wiki

 

??? Then you don't understand what you've read. Or more likely you haven't read it yet. They provide an abundance of evidence. You can dispute their conclusions drawn from the data but their data isn't in dispute.

 

Like I said, ignore their conclusions if you prefer. Their data isn't in dispute. THE increase in global temperature isn't in the temperature readings and is instead in their adjustments to the temperature readings.

 

To summarized you ramblings
per-review is only valid if you agree with the outcome of the study

 

incase your propagandized global warming alarmist sites didn't inform you man only creates 10% of the worlds CO2 emissions so even if man stopped all CO2 production what the hell are you going to do about the other 90%

 

Since you read the report let's talk about it. What are your thoughts about using bloggers as sources? What are thoughts about figures IV-1 and IV-3 and IV-5? How much warming does each show before and after the data was "manipulated"? What are your thoughts about using daily highs above 100F at cherry picked sites as a proxy for determining the global mean temperature anomaly increase? What are you thoughts about trying to remove the urban heat island effect...should we or shouldn't we?

 

Trees take care of the other 90%. You see nature produces CO2 and then soaks it up which keeps it balanced. But now humans are adding to that by digging up all the CO2 stored in the ground over billions of years when CO2 was much higher and pumping it out. At the same time we are cutting out the same forests that are soaking it up. This is creating an imbalance that is building up CO2 levels from 280 PPM to 410 PPM and is estimated to be 800 PPM by 2100.

 

and a new study has determined the earth is getting greener and greener caused by warmer temps and more CO2. with the earth being greener will then decrease CO2 from the atmosphere which will then cool the climate. with cooler climates and less CO2 the earth will get less greener and more CO2 will be left and the cycle starts all over again
earth systems work in cycles they are always in flux

 

Daily wire, nothing like an unbiased source.
We didn't land on the moon either.
At least they got the 10 oil boy unbelievers together.
Only hundreds of thousands of climate scientists to go
Did they mention you can't trek to the North Pole now - not enough snow and ice to walk on?

 

Absolutely.
Our prof pea clearly has never done advanced research or submitted a paper.
"Refute it?"
I'm sure a real climate scientist could in 5 sec.
No use asking laymen
It helps to have it published in a reputable journal

 

LMAO...How many times have you trotted out these hysterical denials that end up going nowhere?
Your carpet bombing is ineffectual.

 

Higher temperatures make icy areas cooler and greener, but it makes dryer and already moderate parts drier and hotter which makes them less green. The problem is that we have far more normal and hot climate areas that will be hurt by global warming than we have tundra that will benefit.

More CO2 is a benefit to plants but there are limits to that, just like eating an unlimited amount of protein isn't going to make you unlimited strong. The body needs only so much of something and as more and more of it is digested, the benefits begin to taper off.

Plants success is basically tied to the amount of water in an area and you see a lot of green plants where there is a lot of water, but when the water goes away the plants begin to decline. CO2 isn't the limiting factor for plants, its water. You can throw as much CO2 as you want at a plant but if the water is the limiting factor its not going to make much of a difference. Its like baking a cake. You can have a ton of flour but if you only have 2 cups of water, you can make only so much cake.

In addition even with these extra plants we are agressively chopping our rainforests which by far soak up the CO2 so it doesn't matter how much CO2 we are throwing at them our forests are shrinking.

 

Considering the efforts weve seen in leaked emails, that the global warming alarmist go to in order to keep out of science journals, any conflicting research, I don think anything of citing to a blog. Especially next to the abundance of cites to the actual data and the corresponding data sets created that form the basis of all these global warming theories.

 

see there is your problem the same problem that science has had for decades you are only referring to forest mass not vegetation as a whole

yes forest has depleted over the decades caused by deforestation and will take decades to replace because of the slow growth of trees but global terrestrial biomass as a whole has increased

Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2581.html?foxtrotcallback=true

 

Global warming cannot be refuted. The only question is the degree in which humans are responsible for accelerating it. Is it possible that air pollution, water pollution, and soil contamination accelerates our death faster than we are accelerating the rise in temperature?

Should we find ways to reduce pollution even if we believe the effects on warming are negligible?

 

How many times have you trotted out these hysterical "world's coming to an end" scenarios that end up going nowhere?

 

Why will it matter when Iran and North Korea are bent on destroying the planet and more specifically the country you live in with nuclear weapons? They'll destroy the planet long before any effect from man's fossil fuel use ever will. What would you do to stop them?

Yes, but how will you stop North Korea from destroying our country and the planet?