Climate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates BitterFeud

[kancer kid]

Quote by: Night No. There are much much cheaper ways to completely stop global warming, which will cost less than a billion dollars. For example, pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere (as naturally occurs in volcanic eruptions) will reduce global temperatures, especially in polar regions, and counteract greenhouse gases. That's a quick, cheap, and simple solution to global warming which can easily and quickly be implemented. They could use large tubes, supported with balloons. Or several nations could release tons of sulfur dioxide into the air with hundreds of aircraft flights over a year or two.

If you put too much sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, one could accelerate global warming, destroy the Ozone layer, and cause horrible acid rains.

Put too little in, and you probably still affect different types of life on earth, cause acid rain, and maybe cool the earth a little.

Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways

Abstract Global climate change, prior to the 20th century, appears to have been initiated primarily by major changes in volcanic activity. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the most voluminous chemically active gas emitted by volcanoes and is readily oxidized to sulfuric acid normally within weeks. But trace amounts of SO2 exert significant influence on climate. ... There have also been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades. Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming. Large volumes of SO2 erupted frequently appear to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere resulting in very rapid warming. Such warming and associated acid rain becomes extreme when millions of cubic kilometers of basalt are erupted in much less than one million years. These are the times of the greatest mass extinctions. When major volcanic eruptions do not occur for decades to hundreds of years, the atmosphere can oxidize all pollutants, leading to a very thin atmosphere, global cooling and decadal drought. Prior to the 20th century, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) followed increases in temperature initiated by changes in SO2. By 1962, man burning fossil fuels was adding SO2 to the atmosphere at a rate equivalent to one “large” volcanic eruption each 1.7 years. Global temperatures increased slowly from 1890 to 1950 as anthropogenic sulfur increased slowly. Global temperatures increased more rapidly after 1950 as the rate of anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased. By 1980 anthropogenic sulfur emissions peaked and began to decrease because of major efforts especially in Japan, Europe, and the United States to reduce acid rain. Atmospheric concentrations of methane began decreasing in 1990 and have remained nearly constant since 2000, demonstrating an increase in oxidizing capacity. Global temperatures became roughly constant around 2000 and even decreased beginning in late 2007. Meanwhile atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have continued to increase at the same rate that they have increased since 1970. Thus SO2 is playing a far more active role in initiating and controlling global warming than recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Massive reduction of SO2 should be a top priority in order to reduce both global warming and acid rain. But man is also adding two to three orders of magnitude more CO2 per year to the climate than one “large” volcanic eruption added in the past. Thus CO2, a greenhouse gas, is contributing to global warming and should be reduced. We have already significantly reduced SO2 emissions in order to reduce acid rain. We know how to do it both technically and politically. In the past, sudden climate change was typically triggered by sudden increases in volcanic activity. Slow increases in greenhouse gases, therefore, do not appear as likely as currently thought to trigger tipping points where the climate suddenly changes. However we do need to start planning an appropriate human response to future major increases in volcanic activity.

ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR
INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY
DILEMMA?

Recent research has shown that the warming of earth by the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is partially countered by some backscattering to space of solar radiation by the sulfate particles, which act as cloud condensation nuclei and thereby influ- ence the micro-physical and optical properties of clouds, affecting regional precip- itation patterns, and increasing cloud albedo. Anthropogenically enhanced sulfate particle concentrations thus cool the planet, offsetting an uncertain fraction of the anthro- pogenic increase in greenhouse gas warming. However, this fortunate coincidence is “bought” at a substantial price. According to theWorld Health Organization, the pollution particles affect health and lead to more than 500,000 premature deaths per year worldwide . Through acid precipitation and deposition, SO2 and sulfates also cause various kinds of ecological damage. This creates a dilemma for environmental policy makers, because the required emission reductions of SO2, and also anthropogenic organics (except black carbon), as dictated by health and ecological considerations, add to global warming and associated negative conse- quences, such as sea level rise, caused by the greenhouse gases.

it does not seem like there is a quick and dirty solution to this problem. I highly doubt making the problem such a political problem (opportunity?) is in fact solving anything though.

[Night]

Most volcanoes do not eject SO2 16 miles high, as this plan calls for. As well, it wouldn't use that much. A single volcanic eruption emits much more.

There are more ideas out there, such as creating mist using boats in the pacific to generate clouds, which reduces temperature of the ocean.

[rmnunez]

The only acceptable solution must involve punishing western affluence, take away their cars, outlaw air conditioning, ban all plastics, forbid the consumption of beef, impose tremendous taxes and transfer billions to the third world

[big_lefty]

Quote by: rmnunez The only acceptable solution must involve punishing western affluence, take away their cars, outlaw air conditioning, ban all plastics, forbid the consumption of beef, impose tremendous taxes and transfer billions to the third world

That may be ~your~ idea of the only acceptable solution, but your original claim was that this was the ultimate aim of climate scientists, a claim for which you have provided no backup.
I doubt very much that they see such drastic measures as the only acceptable solution.

You know what really annoys me about the climate change back and forth of dueling science, accusation, and counter-accusation? It totally ignores the fact that there's an even bigger incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption and explore alternate sources of energy, which is the reality that the supply of oil is rapidly dwindling.
Anyone who fails to recognize the urgency of this situation is playing ostrich. If we don't learn to live without oil, our entire civilization will start to collapse. Even the most optimistic estimates have the decline predicted to start in 2020. We have, at most, only ten years to change the way we live.
That should make all this posturing about what causes global warming about as relevant as wasting time bickering about why a gargantuan asteroid is plummeting to the earth instead of trying to divert its path.
We are hitting the threshold of what resources the planet provides. It's not just oil. It's gas, uranium, potash, phosphate, coal etc.
Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about that or take measures to change our lifestyle which leads us to rely on these resources. They want to fight about what causes global warming.
The human race sucks.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: big_lefty That may be ~your~ idea of the only acceptable solution, but your original claim was that this was the ultimate aim of climate scientists, a claim for which you have provided no backup. I doubt very much that they see such drastic measures as the only acceptable solution. You know what really annoys me about the climate change back and forth of dueling science, accusation, and counter-accusation? It totally ignores the fact that there's an even bigger incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption and explore alternate sources of energy, which is the reality that the supply of oil is rapidly dwindling. Anyone who fails to recognize the urgency of this situation is playing ostrich. If we don't learn to live without oil, our entire civilization will start to collapse. Even the most optimistic estimates have the decline predicted to start in 2020. We have, at most, only ten years to change the way we live. That should make all this posturing about what causes global warming about as relevant as wasting time bickering about why a gargantuan asteroid is plummeting to the earth instead of trying to divert its path. We are hitting the threshold of what resources the planet provides. It's not just oil. It's gas, uranium, potash, phosphate, coal etc. Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about that or take measures to change our lifestyle which leads us to rely on these resources. They want to fight about what causes global warming. The human race sucks.

You might think the human race sucks, but some of us love it and have confidence that, if free, will adapt and change by more organic forces than forced ones.

If/when oil production peaks in the next few years, the price of oil (and oil products such as petrol) will go up. This gives out the signal to businesses and entrepeneurs that there is a great deal of money to be made in a) finding more oil, and b) create alternatives. This explosion of activity will probably bring other interesting technologies as they discover supporting tech's for the core fuel tech. But this will only happen when we hit the 'tipping point', when (for example with cars) the price of petrol at the pump becomes so expensive it is worth us buying what will be, initially, expensive and still a little experimental new types of car.

Human's are amazing. We will adapt, improvise and overcome. And we don't need to be turned into drones led by politicians who can't even balance a budget, let alone save a planet.

[rmnunez]

Scientists involved in the IPCC postulate global warming is caused by pollution and that unabated CO2 emissions will have cataclismic consequences. Their prescription is an immediate end to the use of any fossil fuels and a massive transfer of wealth from the first to the third world to help mitigate the consequences of catastrophic climate change.

The summit at Copenhaguen seeks to get western governments to impose on their populations substantial restrictions on CO2 emissions by taxing these, and to commit the revenue generated thereby to develop the third world in environmentally "friendly" ways.

A favourable outcome in Copenhaguen would have the world's governments acknowledge global warming is the consequence of fossil fuel use and that disasters of biblical proportions will result very soon if this doesn't stop right away.

The third world is still pursuing the development they envy in the industrialized world and seeks the consumer driven comforts found in the west, to satisfy them Copenhaguen must commit wealthy developed governments to transfer huge sums to the third world to improve its outlook without pursuing industrialized development which generates that awful CO2. Both China and India have balked at curtailing their emissions arguing its unfair for developing nations to have to cut back since developed ones did all the contaminating.

There is science behind all this, but apparently it doesn't withstand scrutiny, otherwise the scientists proposing global warming is induced by fossil fuel use would have no need to redefine peer review literature to keep alternative explanations out.

When non-scientists like me can identify half a dozen good reasons to question the conclusion pollution is the source of global warming there is a need to address this without dismissing us as "skeptics".

Since forecasts of impending disaster absent an end to fossil fuels fits an environmentalist agenda so well, I believe promotion of the idea there is an urgent need to stop global warming is simply the pursuit of an environmentalist agenda by what is thought to be a more persuasive reason.

[Georgia]

Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand
Newsbusters

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

I can hear the whirring of shredders in Climate Change scientific labs around the world, busy before they too are discovered.

Climategate wasn't just a group of rogue insigificant scientists. They were major players right into the U.N. IPCC and CRU.
World News

Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But you don't have to worry a bit.

Obama's job-creating ajenda is at work as his EPA Moves Forward on CO2 Regulation.
MasterResource

CO2 Regulation under the Clean Air Act: Economic Train Wreck, Constitutional Crisis, Legislative Thuggery

This international climate scandal has great taxation potential through the EPA. A classic case of unrepresented taxation, growing the Federal power and decreasing the relevance of our representatives.

Bush’s EPA could tee up Al Gore’s regulatory agenda on steroids but without any of Gore’s allies on the Hill voting for it or taking responsibility for the compliance burdens and economic fallout, energy realists warned.

WashingtonTimes

CNN's Gupta: Climate change makes pollen dangerous to your health

EPA chief Lisa Jackson says the United States is facing a, quote, "real public health threat" from greenhouse gas emissions in our own country. There's been a lot of data linking greenhouse gases to things like asthma, cardiovascular disease, lung disease overall. There was an interesting new study that came out. I was really fascinated by this, talking about its link to allergies overall. There's about 36 million people who have allergies, and they can be pretty profound.

I wonder exactly how is the Obama administration going to regulate pollen? Just a general Global Warming tax?
And how will it relate to the establishment of Harry Reid's National Healthcare?

Will they impose a special pollen tax connected to the Climate Change scandal, and another healthcare tax on top to cover it's effects?

For that matter ..
Are you employed? If so you are lucky.

It seems all three Federal government branches is bent on preventing economic recovery at best, and sinister destruction at worst by creating the most unstable economic forcast possible.

I'm talking about the new waves of taxes, regulations and business take-overs in the last 12 months let alone unprecedented and unbridled national debt.

Every week it seems there is something new from Washington, almost as if it's intentional.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: G Adams If/when oil production peaks in the next few years, the price of oil (and oil products such as petrol) will go up. This gives out the signal to businesses and entrepeneurs that there is a great deal of money to be made in a) finding more oil, and b) create alternatives. This explosion of activity will probably bring other interesting technologies as they discover supporting tech's for the core fuel tech. But this will only happen when we hit the 'tipping point', when (for example with cars) the price of petrol at the pump becomes so expensive it is worth us buying what will be, initially, expensive and still a little experimental new types of car.

Your faith in the mystical power of the market as the solution to all of man's problems is, if nothing else, touching. The large problem with your naive outlook is that research in alternative energy solutions, spurred on by this decline in resources, takes a considerable amount of time (research always does) all the while our demands on a rapidly declining resources increase. To put it bluntly, your view promises to be too little too late. Alternative energy technology does not require meaningful investment in a few years or so, it required it decades ago. Delay, while we wait for the situation to becomes so pressing that investment becomes proitable in the short term as well as the long term and therefore actually attracts investment, strikes me as madness. We require investment now, and if buisness isn't willing to step up then the tax payer, as usual, has to collectively lighten the national purse.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Your faith in the mystical power of the market as the solution to all of man's problems is, if nothing else, touching. The large problem with your naive outlook is that research in alternative energy solutions, spurred on by this decline in resources, takes a considerable amount of time (research always does) all the while our demands on a rapidly declining resources increase. To put it bluntly, your view promises to be too little too late. Alternative energy technology does not require meaningful investment in a few years or so, it required it decades ago. Delay, while we wait for the situation to becomes so pressing that investment becomes proitable in the short term as well as the long term and therefore actually attracts investment, strikes me as madness. We require investment now, and if buisness isn't willing to step up then the tax payer, as usual, has to collectively lighten the national purse.

Unless you are suggesting we all voluntarily commit suicide or move back to the cave, I presume your alternative is government led? How is a belief that a craven class of power seekers can manage this situation less naiive?

If you do have an alternative, please do let us know, the world is waiting with baited breath.

As for too little too late, private companies are researching alternatives already. They might not be plunging all of their capital into it which would destroy their companies and result in mass layoff's, but they are doing it.

But this is all besides the point. This thread is about a group of scientists acting in a completely underhand, unprofessional manner.

[rmnunez]

Yesterday I read 2 stories on this in the WSJ, one said third world governments at the Copenhagen summit were demanding much larger subsidies and more substantial CO2 reductions from the west (Obama wants US reductions in excess of 80% by 2035)., the other story was about Gore dismissing the importance of the 'flap' over the emails because they were so old (he claimed they were from ten years ago when some of them date back to a year ago).

[big_lefty]

Quote by: G. Adams You might think the human race sucks, but some of us love it and have confidence that, if free, will adapt and change by more organic forces than forced ones. If/when oil production peaks in the next few years, the price of oil (and oil products such as petrol) will go up. This gives out the signal to businesses and entrepeneurs that there is a great deal of money to be made in a) finding more oil, and b) create alternatives. This explosion of activity will probably bring other interesting technologies as they discover supporting tech's for the core fuel tech. But this will only happen when we hit the 'tipping point', when (for example with cars) the price of petrol at the pump becomes so expensive it is worth us buying what will be, initially, expensive and still a little experimental new types of car. Human's are amazing. We will adapt, improvise and overcome. And we don't need to be turned into drones led by politicians who can't even balance a budget, let alone save a planet.

Ah, the old "market forces will save us" argument (organic forces, what an ironic euphemism). That won't wash, because we haven't invested in alternatives in time to mitigate the damage. It may already be too late.

Even if we could just "find more oil" as you naively suggest, it most likely wouldn't be fast enough or plentiful enough to meet the demand.
In fact, you need oil just to find oil. You need oil to create alternatives to oil. All industry runs on it. You don't seem to understand how pervasive the problem is.

The rest of your post is mere emotional appeal- how we should have faith in the great resilience of the human race, hyperbolic warnings of Orwellian scenarios arising from gov't mandates to fund alternative energy, etc.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Your faith in the mystical power of the market as the solution to all of man's problems is, if nothing else, touching. The large problem with your naive outlook is that research in alternative energy solutions, spurred on by this decline in resources, takes a considerable amount of time (research always does) all the while our demands on a rapidly declining resources increase. To put it bluntly, your view promises to be too little too late. Alternative energy technology does not require meaningful investment in a few years or so, it required it decades ago. Delay, while we wait for the situation to becomes so pressing that investment becomes proitable in the short term as well as the long term and therefore actually attracts investment, strikes me as madness. We require investment now, and if buisness isn't willing to step up then the tax payer, as usual, has to collectively lighten the national purse.

Exactly. I'm glad somebody else gets it.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: G. Adams Unless you are suggesting we all voluntarily commit suicide or move back to the cave, I presume your alternative is government led? How is a belief that a craven class of power seekers can manage this situation less naiive? If you do have an alternative, please do let us know, the world is waiting with baited breath. As for too little too late, private companies are researching alternatives already. They might not be plunging all of their capital into it which would destroy their companies and result in mass layoff's, but they are doing it. But this is all besides the point. This thread is about a group of scientists acting in a completely underhand, unprofessional manner.

In a debate, you don't usually propose sweeping solutions for global problems, you merely try to analyze and identify the problems, so don't expect him to save the planet.

What significant research is being done into alternatives as per your claim? How close are they to development?

If you thought it all beside the point, why did you respond to my post in the first place? My post was an explanation of why I think the revelations about the emails, and all other forms of climate change bickering, are a waste of time in the face of the real problem.

[rmnunez]

Developing a substitute for fossil fuel requires and extensive research, costly capital investment and long-term planning, additionally all this equipment we use applying fossil fuels will need to be modified or replaced.

Government can incentivize this process facilitating subsidies and promoting alternatives. However, the market will keep people from switching as long as the cost of fossil fuel is cheaper despite the subsidies. Now we have some government efforts towards encouraging alternatives, there are tax incentives to invest in alternative fuels, car pool lanes for hybrids and discounts in their registration, but its not enough, people still buy conventional vehicles. To compell the switch benefits need to be greater. Benefits like a cleaner environment and healthier people are too remote to encourage enough people to use the alternative.

When the cost of oil rises people will use the alternative, just remember how "smart car" sales boomed when oil was at $4 a gallon. Consider how few "Prius" cars you see and its evident the market doesn't support the alternative yet.

[Georgia]

Garlic and oats are the answer to slash global warming.

Dailymail.co.uk

[rmnunez]

hackers broke into a computer system belonging to a highly respected climate research center at Britain's University of East Anglia, stole several thousand e-mails spanning a decade between some of the world's leading climate scientists, and three weeks ago put some of the spiciest ones on the Internet. One referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures. Another disparaged the skeptics, and a scientist said "the last thing I need is news articles claiming to question temperature increases." Free Email, Unlimited Storage, Anti-Virus & Spam Protection and Personalized Content - Mail.com

Using “tricks” to “hide the decline” of temperatures sounds like an effort to mislead people into believing there is global warming. Why would a scientist be concerned over news articles doubting temperature increases, what interest does science have in promoting the notion there is global warming? Since when does science have an agenda?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: big_lefty Ah, the old "market forces will save us" argument (organic forces, what an ironic euphemism). That won't wash, because we haven't invested in alternatives in time to mitigate the damage. It may already be too late. Even if we could just "find more oil" as you naively suggest, it most likely wouldn't be fast enough or plentiful enough to meet the demand. In fact, you need oil just to find oil. You need oil to create alternatives to oil. All industry runs on it. You don't seem to understand how pervasive the problem is. The rest of your post is mere emotional appeal- how we should have faith in the great resilience of the human race, hyperbolic warnings of Orwellian scenarios arising from gov't mandates to fund alternative energy, etc.

Lefty, if you want to discuss this tangent I'm happy to do so. In a new thread. This debate has veered into a discussion about the pro's and con's of counter measures to global warming. The OP is about the emails and data contained in the leak at CRU. Let's leave topic as it should be.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: G. Adams Lefty, if you want to discuss this tangent I'm happy to do so. In a new thread. This debate has veered into a discussion about the pro's and con's of counter measures to global warming. The OP is about the emails and data contained in the leak at CRU. Let's leave topic as it should be.

Agreed. I'm done with this, anyway.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: G. Adams How is a belief that a craven class of power seekers can manage this situation less naiive? But this is all besides the point. This thread is about a group of scientists acting in a completely underhand, unprofessional manner.

Quote by: Adams How is a belief that a craven class of power seekers can manage this situation less naiive?

Because, contrary to your belief, "that a craven class of power seekers" are not always useless and they only need invest the state money not carry out the necessary research and development themselves. Do you suppose that Winston Churchill himself built the Colossus computers?

Quote by: Adams As for too little too late, private companies are researching alternatives already. They might not be plunging all of their capital into it which would destroy their companies and result in mass layoff's, but they are doing it.

No doubt they are investing, even the most shortsighted of energy company must at long last be beginning to see the way things are going; but if you wish to convice us that this investment is anything other than lip service to the problem you are going to have to provide some evidence.

Quote by: Adams But this is all besides the point. This thread is about a group of scientists acting in a completely underhand, unprofessional manner.

Indeed it is, and as I noted earlier in the thread, it turns out that private comments when cherry picked, stripped of all context and deliberately misinterpreted can be made to read badly. Tell me something I didn't know.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Because, contrary to your belief, "that a craven class of power seekers" are not always useless and they only need invest the state money not carry out the necessary research and development themselves. Do you suppose that Winston Churchill himself built the Colossus computers? No doubt they are investing, even the most shortsighted of energy company must at long last be beginning to see the way things are going; but if you wish to convice us that this investment is anything other than lip service to the problem you are going to have to provide some evidence. Indeed it is, and as I noted earlier in the thread, it turns out that private comments when cherry picked, stripped of all context and deliberately misinterpreted can be made to read badly. Tell me something I didn't know.

Chris, as I've said to lefty, I'm happy to discuss countermeasures (and their funding) in a new thread. But this particular thread is about the emails and data from CRU, As such I won't be responding further here unless it relates directly to the OP.