Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Emails obtained by hacking a British University show a suppression and manipulation of data intended to hide the fact that the planet has not warmed in the last 15 years, but has in fact been cooling for the last nine.



"Even alarmist Tim Flannery, confronted on Lateline with the emails of the global warming conspiracy, concedes holes in the “science is settled” argument and admits to what he didn’t before:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend."




and...




"Lord Monckton says those implicated by the leaked emails are “crooks”:

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up…

(P)rocurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers. "


and...


"The Australian goes in longer, and a fraction harder:

About 1000 emails and 3000 documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change sceptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence."

This is data from the Climate Research Unit.




More here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...y_news_spreads/

.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend


bullcrud - gavin is trying to do damage control - unfortunately (for him) it's akin to trying to weld together the Titanic just after it hit the iceberg.

I think he's starting to give up though - the following quote was pulled from Fiend's link - and is one of the comments, in which gavin replied.

Quote:

80. Has there been any explanation given for charge that there was a request for emails to be deleted to avoid an FOI request? All I’ve heard is that no emails were deleted, but the request itself is completely unethical and most likely illegal. Everything else I’ve seen seems to due to poor word choice and/or lack of context. The FOI avoidance would be a big blow to CRU, even if it doesn’t affect climate science.

[Response: In my opinion that email was very ill-advised. - gavin]



What are the other warmists saying? Ever heard of George Monbiot?
Quote:

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...mate-scientists


These are quotes taken out of context you say? Here's the whole bloody email where Jones told people to delete all emails related to the AR4 report - to get around a Freedom of Information Act request http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
Care to explain how this could be taken out of context????

Quote:

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>



These guys have given science a black-eye. Applying "tricks" into order to "hide the decline". Ensuring certain papers don't get into AR4, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !". Deciding that journals who publish papers that they don't agree with should no longer be considered a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, and that they should "encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal". Oh yeah, this sounds like the scientific method that I was taught!!

This is nothing more than scientific fraud, and should be treated as such.

And let's be clear - the people implicated in this just aren't a "few" rogue scientists. These are THE people who have been developed long term climate records (1000 AD - present day). The very records that have "proven" that the current temperatures are well beyond what the globe has experienced over the past 1000 years.

Tell me - what happens if it turns out current temperatures are not out of line with historic variability??
It's a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Unofficially melting glaciers..


Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Yup - and those glaciers have been melting for about 13,000 years. You know - the ones that once covered much of Canada in ice, whose thickness was measured in kilometers???

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Canuck
Yup - and those glaciers have been melting for about 13,000 years. You know - the ones that once covered much of Canada in ice, whose thickness was measured in kilometers???
If they're melting, then we are observing global warming, not cooling. Tree stumps dated to 7000 years old are popping up where glaciers have retreated to historic minimum.


Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: Zephir
If they're melting, then we are observing global warming, not cooling. Tree stumps dated to 7000 years old are popping up where glaciers have retreated to historic minimum.


Yes, I agree........climate has some fairly significant variability. Glad we can agree on that. Forest's become glaciers, glacier's melt and become forests again.

Now - any response to climate researches deleting emails to circumvent a freedom of information act request?

Last edited by Canuck; 11/25/09 03:44 AM. Reason: removed pictures
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
....But really; an FOI request for the IPCC?
What FOI request started this? Who was it for, and what information was sought? Who filed the FOI?
===

Over 12 years of emails, and this is all the hackers/denialists can come up with? Where are the grand conspiracies, the leftist streams of funding, the marching orders from Al Gore?
Why haven't these guys stopped pretending to save civilization from itself, and fled to their Swiss chalets to finally enjoy their secret bank accounts.

Gee, I can't imagine why these guys would be defensively emailing about their "hockey stick;" it not as if they've been under a microscope for years now - and the overall resulting "hockey stick" is still as valid and robust.
Fortunately, there are other hockey sticks to look at -that are unrelated to the proxies used by Mann's study- and they tell the same story about anthropogenic influence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph
A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures:
"...but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts." -SciAm, Nov. 2009


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
samwise - you're conveniently forgetting that there is much more involved than deleting information related to a FOI request (which btw is an illegal act in the UK).

As far as this "new" approach - it has not yet been peer reviewed. It's only been submitted to a Journal. Perhaps you should wait until it's been reviewed. Preferably by people other than Jones, Mann, Briffa, et. al., who have pledged to "redefine what the peer-review literature is" if need be.

Since Mann was quoted saying the paper was "promising", it indicates he's already peripherally involved(perhaps as a secondary contributor, or a reviewer). I'm sorry - anything this crew touches is questionable. That's one of the penalties for committing scientific fraud.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The point isn't that the glaciers have been melting, but the rate at which they have been melting in recent years. I think you know this.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
If Global Warming were indeed real, we should surely expect to see continued warming as CO2 emissions continue to rise. But we have not. In fact the scientific models singularly failed to predict that we would see a reduction in temperatures.

Why?

Because they have been fed erroneous data.



It is not the emails that damn the CRU (used by the IPCC).

Look at what one programmer said of his three year mission to unsuccessfully make sense of the CRU's data.


So far, most of the Climategate attention has been on the emails in the data dump of November 19 (see here, here, and here), but the emails are only about 5 percent of the total. What does examining the other 95 percent tell us?

Here’s the short answer: it tells us that something went very wrong in the data management at the Climatic Research Unit.

We start with a file called “HARRY_READ_ME.txt.” This is a file containing notes of someone’s three-year effort to try to turn a pile of existing code and data into something useful. Who is Harry, you ask? Clearly, a skilled programmer with some expertise in data reduction, statistics, and climate science. Beyond that I won’t go. I’ve seen sites attributing this file to an identifiable person, but I don’t have any corroboration, and frankly the person who wrote these years of notes has suffered enough.

The story the file tells is of a programmer who started off with a collection of code and data — and the need to be able to replicate some results. The first entry:

1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:

/cru/dpe1a/f014

/cru/tyn1/f014

Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/

Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted “read me” files addressing individual issues, the most useful being:

fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt

(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin ‘_’!)

Believe it or not, this tells us quite a bit. “Harry” is starting off with two large collections of data on a UNIX or UNIX-like system (forward slashes, the word “filesystem”) and only knows very generally what the data might be. He has copied it from where it was to a new location and started to work on it. Almost immediately, he notices a problem:

6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there’s always another problem to be evaded. Instead, will try using rawtogrim.f90 to convert straight to GRIM. This will include non-land cells but for comparison purposes that shouldn’t be a big problem … [edit] noo, that’s not gonna work either, it asks for a “template grim filepath,” no idea what it wants (as usual) and a serach for files with “grim” or “template” in them does not bear useful fruit. As per usual. Giving up on this approach altogether.

Things aren’t going well. Harry is trying to reconstruct results that someone else obtained, using their files but without their help.

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy — naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

Okay, this isn’t so unusual, actually, but unless you document and describe your file structure, it’s pretty much opaque to a new reader. Still, Harry presses on:

11. Decided to concentrate on Norwich. Tim M uses Norwich as the example on the website, so we know it’s at (363,286). Wrote a prog to extract the relevant 1961-1970 series from the published output, the generated .glo files, and the published climatology. Prog is norwichtest.for. Prog also creates anomalies from the published data, and raw data from the generated .glo data. Then Matlab prog plotnorwich.m plots the data to allow comparisons. First result: works perfectly, except that the .glo data is all zeros. This means I still don’t understand the structure of the .glo files. Argh!

Poor Harry is in the first circle of programmer hell: the program runs fine; the output is wrong.

He presses on:

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key output from the debug statements:

some test output…

forrtl: error (75): floating point exception

IOT trap (core dumped)

..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!

This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to that bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done:

AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).

For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented.

For 1996 to 2002:

1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs;

2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f;

3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms);

4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data;

5. add to gridded data from step 3.

This should approximate the correction needed.

Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only …

Next problem — which database to use? The one with the normals included is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases).

They still don’t know what to use for the next several years. Harry gives up; it’s easier to write new codes.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

This kind of thing is as fascinating as a soap opera, but I want to know how it comes out. Near the bottom of the file, I find:

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

The file peters out, no conclusions. I hope they find this poor guy, and he didn’t hang himself in his rooms or something, because this file is a summary of three years of trying to get this data working. Unsuccessfully.

I think there’s a good reason the CRU didn’t want to give their data to people trying to replicate their work.

It’s in such a mess that they can’t replicate their own results.

This is not, sadly, all that unusual. Simply put, scientists aren’t software engineers. They don’t keep their code in nice packages and they tend to use whatever language they’re comfortable with. Even if they were taught to keep good research notes in the past, it’s not unusual for things to get sloppy later. But put this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.



From here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/2/

The data is such a mess and appears to be made up. No wonder they never released it. Shame.

Obama is just about to tax America through the nose to 'save the planet'. We are all going to be taxed because of this horrendous fraud whatever country we live in.


Thanks to the crooked scientists involved, when this finally hits the public consciousness, trust in science will be dealt a crippling blow.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940


"If Global Warming were indeed real, we should surely expect to see continued warming as CO2 emissions continue to rise."

That's the comic book version of it. GW theory has never predicted that temperatures are expected to rise every year; rather it's an inter-decadal trend.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
GW theory has not successfully predicted anything as yet. The Climate change models have not successfully predicted anything yet. In fact they have been demonstrably incorrect.

The issue here is that one of the providers of the data that GW theory rests upon has been found out to be incompetent and dishonest and as some of the emails show, politically driven.

If this does not bring climate change science into a state of suspicion then I don't know what will.

There has been clear suppression of science that has dared to disagree with the received wisdom. Science as faith.

The fact that the planet has not been warming over the last 15 years, but has been cooling RAPIDLY over the last nine has been suppressed. That is criminal.

As for the comic book theory - if CO2 is responsible for warming, why would you expect to see such cooling whilst greenhouse gases are still rising? Surely there is either a connection with CO2 or there isn't. Why does the global temperature move in the opposite direction when GGs are intensifying in the atmosphere?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"if CO2 is responsible for warming, why would you expect to see such cooling whilst greenhouse gases are still rising? "

1. Nobody claims that CO2 is the only thing driving climate change.

2. The trend is over the long term, not over periods of less than 10 years.

3. This is because "correlated" does not mean "is directly proportional to."

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The point isn't that the glaciers have been melting, but the rate at which they have been melting in recent years. I think you know this.


One small correction - it's whether the rate at which they are melting is greater than the rate at which they've melted previously. And since we have no idea on the actual rate of melt prior to the 1900's or so - we have no idea if the recent melt rate is out of line.


But enough of this - I'd like you to explain how this following email could be taken "out of context" as you suggested. After all, these emails are what the OP first posted on.

Quote:

From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

It's unclear. They're deleting emails related to AR4. No idea what the contents might have been. Was that in any of he other emails?

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
More bad science...

'The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend.... But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result.'

There seems to be a pattern appearing.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
TFF,

You may not have an issue with 15 years of non-warming but certainly one climatologist (who I assume is more qualified to comment) sees real problems with it. From one of the leaked emails...


'Another shows a climatologist from the U.S. admitting it was a travesty that the lack of global warming in recent years could not be explained.'

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It's unclear. They're deleting emails related to AR4. No idea what the contents might have been. Was that in any of the other emails?

Ha! I wonder if they were speculating on some AR4 adjustment, and then realized they were "barking up the wrong tree." That would be cause enough to delete emails; not wanting to be reminded about their baseless or laughable speculations.

Probably though, the referenced emails were just some very disparaging (of obscene) comments about "CA" and McIntyre personally; as he was requesting lots of information related to AR4.

Was anything ever deleted? Wouldn't deleted emails still be on the server?


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Socrates2007
TFF,

You may not have an issue with 15 years of non-warming but....

Wow Soc'07, now it's 15 years of cooling!?
===


Originally Posted By: denialist's blog

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504
But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.
The Argo data shows that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004, and possibly as far back as mid-2003 when the Argo network started:


Are they accounting for all the unexpected melting of ice during this same period?
~ confused

p.s. I don't know if the quoted website has valid information, but even this denialist site doesn't talk about 15 years of "non-warming."

Last edited by samwik; 11/27/09 08:12 AM. Reason: add p.s.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5