Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Mojo, I'm bearing down on you here. If your posted graph is important, tell us where it came from so that we can discuss it. If you say it is not important, I'll not ask you about it again.

We could certainly talk about cave records (speleothems) in a new thread? They are indeed quite revealing but, perhaps, surface soils are a better place to to look for cosmogenic Be. Probably you know that? Or maybe not? Ion exchange in soils can severely limit what 'ionic' records can dribble into the caves. Anyway, I'd be happy to discuss what global caves (might) tell us about previous climates.

Everybody else - I wrote a dandy response but my computer swallered it up. Hope to have time in the next few days to reconstruct.

 

would you care to share your sources?
According to NASA, the Antarctica ice loss accelerated
http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/93800-antartica-ice-loss-has-accelerated.html
NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010—where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/
"So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
It’s really much to do about nothing."

 

Antarctic ice grows to record levels


[ame="http://www.google.com/search?q=antarctica+growing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a"]antarctica growing - Google Search[/ame]

 

Im looking into the Grace Satellites used to measure ice and this came up.

"A word on Velicogna -- she's an idiot who graduated from a "party" school on the coast of Italy. She'll sell her ideas and papers to anyone gullible enough to believe in PGR models (post-glacial rebound, or the visco-elastic response of the Earth to unloading of glacial mass). LOL - serious scientists are falling for this crap!

Here's just one example of the kind of nonsense Velicogna considers acceptable:

"The GRACE C20 coefficients show anomalously large variability, so we replace them with values derived from satellite laser ranging."

No technical rationale... they just didn't like the large variability in the GRACE coefficients, so they ditched them and substituted something that would produce the desired results. Shameful.

The truth is that GRACE measurements were never appropriate for attempting to assess changes in glacial mass. Only half-witted idiots would make the attempt.

Beneath every two cubic kilometers of ice in Antarctica are over 6,000 cubic kilometers of rock and mantle and core material that are collectively an average of twice the density of the ice. Therefore, if the Antarctic glacier were to COMPLETELY melt, the change in gravity would be one part in 6,000.

The ACTUAL estimated loss over the 20th century has been about 5.5 ppm (parts per million per year). Therefore, GRACE would need to measure changes on the order of ppb (parts per billion) to confirm this annual loss, using gravimetric measurements.

The complications plaguing GRACE satellites are too numerous to list exhaustively. Here are just a few:

1) Changes in lunar gravity
2) Changes in ocean mass
3) Tidal changes
4) Changes in atmospheric drag
5) Changes in ionospheric activity (affects geomagnetic field, polar radiation)
6) Changes in geomagnetic field (interferes with polar measurements, necessary for evaluating the gravity field as satellites pass over Antarctica)
7) Changes in satellite spacing (relative positions)
8) Changes in satellite velocity (requires firing thrusters to maintain relative position)
9) Regular, cyclical changes in Earth's shape

There is no way on God's green earth that those GRACE satellites, given the complexity of the measurements and the specified accuracy of the measuring instruments, can accurately measure parts per billion, let alone parts per ten billion (necessary to confidently observe parts per billion of change).

But that doesn't seem to bother Velicogna. Someone ought to check her college grades & transcript, and make sure she actually earned that degree, because there's no evidence of her logical reasoning ability in the paper Jeff referenced."

How We Know Global Warming is Real by Dr. Tapio Schneider | Facebook

 

I can get the Cuffey and Clow 1997 from JGR, but not immediately. From their abstract it appears that they made an ice sheet heat flow model for Greenland, specifically the GISP2 coring site. This would seem a wholly different approach than the typical 18-oxygen isotopes, and all I can say so far is I don't know which one is more suitable. C&C 1997 have been cited in 227 more recent papers, which is lot.

THe graph mojo posted (from WUWT), attributed to Alley, didn't come from there. Watt attributes it in this way, but it's not in the paper. I posted a free link to the Alley paper; you can see for yourself. Unless Anthony Watt reveals where it came from, it would be quite difficult to find.

We're now off in two other directions here - Antarctic ice dynamics and the GRACE satellites. Both fascinating but not something I can say much about. An interested amateur at best. The GRACE twins indeed are trying to measure small variations in a pretty large thing. Apparently there is diversity of opinions about how good they are at it.

 

Remember, Anthony Watts, TV weatherman!



Icarus

 

Icarus, you are the Yang to my Yin. The bulldog to my poodle.

 

Seems to me if NASA had any confidence in this study they would have made the title of the article a statement rather than a question."Is Antarctica Melting?"

 

You're Darwin and he's Thomas Huxley. lol

 

As it is presented, another example of Ad Hominen

with respect to actual arguments

it is a mood point to discuss how much rock beneath every cubic kilo of ice in Antarctica, b/c it is under Eastern Antarctica, the article discusses Western Antarctica, which besides a few islands mostly ocean.

The GRACE 1-9 arguments.... changes in lunar gravity, tidal, etc etc etc yes they are legit concern. What kills the argument is that the changes on graph are consistent with annual seasonal changes. When it gets cold ice grows when it gets warm it retreats. When it snows ice grows when sun shines it melts.

PS we would need to discuss PGR in different thread.. come on there is numerous geological evidence confirming it, how could you call yourself a scientist and not believe in PGR????

BTW reviewing the list of Tapio Schneider publications,
Tapio Schneider -> Publications geology, geophysics, Mantle viscosity, PGR, etc appears to be well outside of his area of expertise, pretty much all his publications are on Hadley and atmospheric circulation. Perhaps that is why he is so skeptical?

 

Actually the WUWT website is typically blocked here, so a rare opportunity to examine things. Although perhaps only mojo and I are interested.

The page in question is a guest posting by Don Easterbrook, so asking Anthony Watts where Figure 5 came from might not be the way to find out.

I mentioned Cuffey and Clow before because of this quote from there
"Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present."

Attached is what I believe to be the referenced graph

and it does as Easterbrook says. But it is beyond me to understand or critique C&C's methods. If anyone else would like to take a try I'll send you the pdf.

Meanwhile Easterbrook attributing his Figure 5 to Alley still has me flumoxed. What to do? By coincidence, a young climate-science blogger

ClimateSight

has announced that she's off to be a grad student in Easterbrook's lab (read her site and you'll be as confused as I am about that, but no matter).

I've emailed Kate before - she'll get all this straightened out for us.

F8L you have done a disservice to Darwin by comparing me to him. But if you're right I've some effigy burnings to look forward to

 

Tangential, but just so our geologists don't get upset-

Earth average density is about 5.5, glacial ice 0.9, so the ratio is closer to 6 than 2.

I don't think GRACE satellites are confused by the (constant) earth mass beneath the (changing) ice, but you'd do better to find out from the GRACE people.

 

tochatihu,

To continue this discussion we need to separate 2 issues:
- have the earth been warmer then it is now
- does the anthropogenic activity influences climate, and if it does what is the impact

mojo is using typical propaganda logic (which you living in propaganda state intimately familiar with): "earth has been warming up and cooling down for billions of years, therefore human activity has no implication"

THe whole discussion with mojo boils down to this:

 

Sure I know that home sweet home here has (at least one) Ministry of Propaganda. Other governments seem to have them as well, but they tend not to use the P word. Anyway....

For sure the Earth has been warmer in the past, PETM being the focus of many studies. If I read the latest stuff correctly, undersea volcanism is suspected to have destabilized a lot of methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. Then things got ugly, and it remained for silicate weathering (earth's cleaner-upper in this regard) to undo the damage. In other words, the endgame is geological sequestration, it has worked in the past, but it's millenial-slow. Not a quick problem solver.

Onward. The stable carbon isotpes make it clear that the current CO2 increase is from fossil fuel combustion. Infrared absorption by CO2 is plain old physics, but to derive a climate sensitivity for CO2 that all can agree upon has proven difficult.

The earth is re-radiating less infrared in the CO2 absorption (and methane) bands over time. This is widely cited in re:

Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

So close to a smoking gun (it seems to me) that I'm surprised that nobody has updated it. Or maybe they have and I'm just out of touch.

Until somebody shows me better, this seems like the clearest path of causation.

Surface temperature trends, satellite T trends, ocean T trends are all corroborative but not (strictly) causative. And sure enough, not everyone agrees on those either.

Plant and animal species distributions are changing, grounded ice is melting faster. Permafrost and lakes with seasonal ice cover are changing. There are so many such corroborative examiples that I am frankly amazed to see them all dismissed with a wave of the hand. That's some hand...

But there you have it. If scietists were 'good enough', they should be able to make the case. But there are other voices in the room.

To me, the most surprising is the slow-motion adoption of low-cost (and in some cases negative cost) efficiency and fossil C alternatives. It's as if we had all the time in the world, and that nothing could possibly go wrong.

But from my seat, having been born in 1953, I can expect to miss most of the heavy stuff. So (when not here) I busy myself training the kids to understand earth system science better. Especially the carbon cycle. I think it will be darned useful skills for them to have.

Or, maybe it's just my own personal Propaganda

 

"geological sequestration" May be slow but temp drop isnt.
Ice Age takes a few years (3-20 years )to manifest itself.
While CO2 is still climbing for 800 years.
There is no way that CO2 can prevent the Earths temperature from falling into Ice Age(and it never has).
CO2 has no effect on temperatures while they are falling into Ice Age.
Thus conversely CO2 can not be responsible for temperature rise in interglacial warming periods.(like we are presently enjoying)
But Galactic Cosmic Rays,a proxy for solar activity, correlate perfectly with temperature rises and falls throughout geological history.
You people are ignoring the scientific facts.
The Sun controls climate.

 

That's funny. Real scientists still support theories that revolve around gasses changing climate such is the case with the Deccan Traps or snowball (slushball earth) if you fancy.

 

Real scientists are wrong all the time.The most brilliant scientists think your "real scientists" are dumb,or at least whores for AGW funding.Now thats funny.
How can CO2 cause forcing of interglacial warming,but has no forcing when cooling to Ice Age.
Does it have intelligence?
Can CO2 know to force temp up one moment, then force temperature down the next?

 

I can see by the questions you are asking that you really don't understand this stuff. It's pretty amusing to watch you argue with really scientists.

 

You must be really smart.I can tell by your response.You must also really understand this stuff.Glad you are amused.To bad you can't address my questions.[/QUOTE=F8L;1345111]I can see by the questions you are asking that you really don't understand this stuff. It's pretty amusing to watch you argue with really scientists. [/QUOTE]