Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing

**deathgodusmc** · 02-13-10, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Oh well as long as a school cleared it all up then i guess there was never a problem. LOL does nothing to restore credit to a long standing tainted field.

Tainted for absolutely no reason other than the conspiracy theorists throwing around wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

Or it could be because the whole thing is a theory based off of something that has always been true with number that have to be fudged up to begin with. Climate has always changed and we haven't been here long enough researching it to make a valid call about it.

Tainted because numbers were "fudged"? What was "fudged"?

I disagree about our time spent researching climate. The science may be in its infancy, however we have a pretty good idea about just what the hell is happening, and more importantly, WHY.

So if in 30 years, we are all still on the forums, and we are witnessing an increased average temperature, more severe storms more frequently, etc. What are you going to say?

And to preempt your next question, I would be more than happy to say I was wrong. I would be ecstatic to say I was wrong, because that would mean our predictions were wrong.

Ok i believe the term you and soy used was tweaked but if i get bored enough i'll go back and find it. What am i going to say in 30 years if the the temp is higher and there are more storms? I guess i wont have to worry about it becuase the current trend is lower temps and storms have been about the same as they have been for many many years. Every 3 to 5 years there is always a good one that rips some shit up.

What predictions did the science community get right? I'm still waiting for our guardian radar to get the next day right on rain or shine. If we cant guess a week in advance correctly without fail then assuming we can guess 100 years from now is just absurd.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-13-10, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

said it back when "climategate" happened, it was what 4 e-mails out of 1000s? yet no-one seemed to care why the other 1000s weren't being talked about (or even saw the light of day, from what i remember) why is that?

It was way more than 4 but those are the ones that were discussed. Many were just emails about everyday shit. They all saw the light of day i posted the link for anyone that wanted to read them.

And the 4 that were harped on, were shown to be incorrectly analyzed but the skeptical public.

Who was it that proved that again? climate scientists and a school thats main function is energy and environment. Yeah i gotta go with that isn't disproven at all.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-13-10, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Just to be that guy pote is refering to. How do you take the word of a school that has a list of government funding like this.

General Information on government funding

?Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance - Program Areas
?FedBizOpps.gov
?Grants.gov
State and regional funding sources

?DEP Grant and Loan Programs
?Pennsylvania Environmental Education Grants Program
?Pennsylvania Growing Greener Program
?Search The Pennsylvania Bulletin
Federal funding sources

?Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
?CSREES-National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
?Department of Defense Homepage
?Department of Energy - Office of Science Grants and Contracts Website
?Environmental Protection Agency Homepage
?EPA Catalog of Funding Sources for Watershed Protection
?EPA Grants and Funding in the Mid-Atlantic States
?EPA Grants and Debarment - How to Apply
?EPA Grants and Fellowship Information
?EPA Grants and Debarment
?EPA Great Lakes Program Funding
?EPA National Center for Environmental Research
?EPA Research Opportunities - Environmental Research Grant Announcements
?EPA Research and Development Research Grants, Fellowships and Small Business Opportunities
?EPA STAR Grants and Cooperative Agreements
?Fish and Wildlife Service Homepage
?FWS Grants at a Glance
?FWS - Division of Bird Habitat Conservation: U.S. Small Grants
?NASA Research Opportunities
?NIEHS - National Institute of Environmental Health
?National Cancer Institute Current Requests for Proposals
?National Institutes of Health Homepage
?NIH Grants and Funding Opportunities
?NIH - Request for Proposals (RFP) Directory
?National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Homepage
?NSF - Find Funding
?Office of Naval Research - University Research Initiative
?Smithsonian - Office of Fellowships
?United States Geological Survey Homepage
?USGS Contract and Grant Information
?USGS Grants and Federal Assistance

Yeah no way they would be bias at all on how it all comes out in the end.

And less than a 1/3 of that list is in any way, climate or weather related. The actions of one professor are going to cost Penn State the funding of ALL those programs? Please, people are smarter than that.

No your absolutely right it isn't going to cost them any of them becuase they are going to put an investigation in place and come to the conclusion that there was no wrong doing. Problem solved funding retained.

**Fovezer** · 02-13-10, 06:41 PM

There was never any belief of wrongdoing to begin with among the scientific community. There was never even a real controversy. Just an invented one by deniers who took the emails, distorted them, and tried and pretend they were something they weren't. Classic modus operandi of people like deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists, etc.

**Sgt.TmH** · 02-13-10, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Oh well as long as a school cleared it all up then i guess there was never a problem. LOL does nothing to restore credit to a long standing tainted field.

Tainted for absolutely no reason other than the conspiracy theorists throwing around wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

Or it could be because the whole thing is a theory based off of something that has always been true with number that have to be fudged up to begin with. Climate has always changed and we haven't been here long enough researching it to make a valid call about it.

Tainted because numbers were "fudged"? What was "fudged"?

I disagree about our time spent researching climate. The science may be in its infancy, however we have a pretty good idea about just what the hell is happening, and more importantly, WHY.

So if in 30 years, we are all still on the forums, and we are witnessing an increased average temperature, more severe storms more frequently, etc. What are you going to say?

And to preempt your next question, I would be more than happy to say I was wrong. I would be ecstatic to say I was wrong, because that would mean our predictions were wrong.

Ok i believe the term you and soy used was tweaked but if i get bored enough i'll go back and find it. What am i going to say in 30 years if the the temp is higher and there are more storms? I guess i wont have to worry about it becuase the current trend is lower temps and storms have been about the same as they have been for many many years. Every 3 to 5 years there is always a good one that rips some shit up.

What predictions did the science community get right? I'm still waiting for our guardian radar to get the next day right on rain or shine. If we cant guess a week in advance correctly without fail then assuming we can guess 100 years from now is just absurd.

Agree.

What "more severe storms more frequently"? Where are all the Cat 5 Hurricanes that were supposed to be increasing in number? We've had NONE since 2007!

30 years? Hah! According to all the Global Warming Chicken Littles, all the ice caps and glaciers will have melted by then and we'll all be underwater.

**Potemkine** · 02-13-10, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sgt.TmH

Agree.

What "more severe storms more frequently"? Where are all the Cat 5 Hurricanes that were supposed to be increasing in number? We've had NONE since 2007!

30 years? Hah! According to all the Global Warming Chicken Littles, all the ice caps and glaciers will have melted by then and we'll all be underwater.

Oh really?

BOULDER—The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped since the 1990s, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The shift occurred as global sea surface temperatures have increased over the same period. The research appears in the September 16 issue of Science.

Peter Webster, professor at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, along with NCAR's Greg Holland and Georgia Tech's Judith Curry and Hai-Ru Chang, studied the number, duration, and intensity of hurricanes (also known as typhoons or tropical cyclones) that have occurred worldwide from 1970 to 2004. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR's primary sponsor.

"What we found was rather astonishing," said Webster. "In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year globally. Since 1990, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled, averaging 18 per year globally."

Category 4 hurricanes have sustained winds from 131 to 155 miles per hour; Category 5 systems, such as Hurricane Katrina at its peak over the Gulf of Mexico, feature winds of 156 mph or more.

"This long period of sustained intensity change provides an excellent basis for further work to understand and predict the potential responses of tropical cyclones to changing environmental conditions", said NCAR's Holland.

"Category 4 and 5 storms are also making up a larger share of the total number of hurricanes," said Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and coauthor of the study. "Category 4 and 5 hurricanes made up about 20% of all hurricanes in the 1970s, but over the last decade they accounted for about 35% of these storms."

The largest increases in the number of intense hurricanes occurred in the North Pacific, Southwest Pacific, and the North and South Indian Oceans, with slightly smaller increases in the North Atlantic Ocean.

All this is happening as sea surface temperatures have risen across the globe between one-half and one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region, for hurricane seasons since the 1970s.

"Our work is consistent with the concept that there is a relationship between increasing sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity," said Webster. "However, it's not a simple relationship. In fact, it's difficult to explain why the total number of hurricanes and their longevity has decreased during the last decade, when sea surface temperatures have risen the most."

"NCAR is now embarking on a focused series of computer experiments capable of resolving thunderstorms and the details of tropical cyclones," said Holland. "The results will help explain the observed intensity changes and extend them to realistic climate change scenarios."

The only region that is experiencing more hurricanes and tropical cyclones overall is the North Atlantic, where they have become more numerous and longer-lasting, especially since 1995. The North Atlantic has averaged eight to nine hurricanes per year in the last decade, compared to six to seven per year before the increase. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic have increased at an even faster clip: from 16 in the period of 1975-89 to 25 in the period of 1990-2004, a rise of 56%.
Additional evidence, future research

A study published in July in the journal Nature came to a similar conclusion. Focusing on North Atlantic and North Pacific hurricanes, Kerry Emanuel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) found an increase in their duration and power, although his study used a different measurement to determine a storm's power.

But whether all of this is due to human-induced global warming is still uncertain, said Webster. "We need a longer data record of hurricane statistics, and we need to understand more about the role hurricanes play in regulating the heat balance and circulation in the atmosphere and oceans."

"Basic physical reasoning and climate model simulations and projections motivated this study," said Jay Fein, director of NSF's climate and large scale dynamics program, which funded the research. "These results will stimulate further research into the complex natural and anthropogenic processes influencing these tropical cyclone trends and characteristics."

Webster is currently attempting to determine the basic role of hurricanes in the climate of the planet. "The thing they do more than anything is cool the oceans by evaporating the water and then redistributing the oceans' tropical heat to higher latitudes," he said.

"But we don't know a lot about how evaporation from the ocean surface works when the winds get up to around 100 miles per hour, as they do in hurricanes," said Webster, who adds that this physical understanding will be crucial to connecting trends in hurricane intensity to overall climate change.

"If we can understand why the world sees about 85 named storms a year and not, for example, 200 or 25, then we might be able to say that what we're seeing is consistent with what we'd expect in a global warming scenario. Without this understanding, a forecast of the number and intensity of tropical storms in a future warmer world would be merely statistical extrapolation."

From: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/20...anestudy.shtml

This is back in 2005. 4 Hurricane seasons ago. Since then, 2 category 5s and 5 category 4's in the Atlantic. The funny thing is, 2006 and 2009 were El Nino years so there was a distinct lack of strong cyclonic activity. During EL Nino years, the Atlantic doesn't see that many major hurricanes. Lets look at the Pacific in 2006 and 2009 shall we?

In 2006: 2 category 4s and a category 5. In 2009: 2 category 4s and a category 5. Both years saw over 19 storms, 19 in 2006 and 21 in 2009.

Data taken from:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2009/
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2009/
(change the year in the url to see the desired year. Data as far back as 1948 for the Eastern Pacific and pre-1900 for the Atlantic)

**deathgodusmc** · 02-13-10, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

There was never any belief of wrongdoing to begin with among the scientific community. There was never even a real controversy. Just an invented one by deniers who took the emails, distorted them, and tried and pretend they were something they weren't. Classic modus operandi of people like deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists, etc.

Yeah thats why there is no contravercy over the issue what so ever. LOL

**deathgodusmc** · 02-13-10, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by Sgt.TmH

Agree.

What "more severe storms more frequently"? Where are all the Cat 5 Hurricanes that were supposed to be increasing in number? We've had NONE since 2007!

30 years? Hah! According to all the Global Warming Chicken Littles, all the ice caps and glaciers will have melted by then and we'll all be underwater.

Oh really?

BOULDER—The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, even though the total number of hurricanes has dropped since the 1990s, according to a study by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The shift occurred as global sea surface temperatures have increased over the same period. The research appears in the September 16 issue of Science.

Peter Webster, professor at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, along with NCAR's Greg Holland and Georgia Tech's Judith Curry and Hai-Ru Chang, studied the number, duration, and intensity of hurricanes (also known as typhoons or tropical cyclones) that have occurred worldwide from 1970 to 2004. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR's primary sponsor.

"What we found was rather astonishing," said Webster. "In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year globally. Since 1990, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled, averaging 18 per year globally."

Category 4 hurricanes have sustained winds from 131 to 155 miles per hour; Category 5 systems, such as Hurricane Katrina at its peak over the Gulf of Mexico, feature winds of 156 mph or more.

"This long period of sustained intensity change provides an excellent basis for further work to understand and predict the potential responses of tropical cyclones to changing environmental conditions", said NCAR's Holland.

"Category 4 and 5 storms are also making up a larger share of the total number of hurricanes," said Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and coauthor of the study. "Category 4 and 5 hurricanes made up about 20% of all hurricanes in the 1970s, but over the last decade they accounted for about 35% of these storms."

The largest increases in the number of intense hurricanes occurred in the North Pacific, Southwest Pacific, and the North and South Indian Oceans, with slightly smaller increases in the North Atlantic Ocean.

All this is happening as sea surface temperatures have risen across the globe between one-half and one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region, for hurricane seasons since the 1970s.

"Our work is consistent with the concept that there is a relationship between increasing sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity," said Webster. "However, it's not a simple relationship. In fact, it's difficult to explain why the total number of hurricanes and their longevity has decreased during the last decade, when sea surface temperatures have risen the most."

"NCAR is now embarking on a focused series of computer experiments capable of resolving thunderstorms and the details of tropical cyclones," said Holland. "The results will help explain the observed intensity changes and extend them to realistic climate change scenarios."

The only region that is experiencing more hurricanes and tropical cyclones overall is the North Atlantic, where they have become more numerous and longer-lasting, especially since 1995. The North Atlantic has averaged eight to nine hurricanes per year in the last decade, compared to six to seven per year before the increase. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic have increased at an even faster clip: from 16 in the period of 1975-89 to 25 in the period of 1990-2004, a rise of 56%.
Additional evidence, future research

A study published in July in the journal Nature came to a similar conclusion. Focusing on North Atlantic and North Pacific hurricanes, Kerry Emanuel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) found an increase in their duration and power, although his study used a different measurement to determine a storm's power.

But whether all of this is due to human-induced global warming is still uncertain, said Webster. "We need a longer data record of hurricane statistics, and we need to understand more about the role hurricanes play in regulating the heat balance and circulation in the atmosphere and oceans."

"Basic physical reasoning and climate model simulations and projections motivated this study," said Jay Fein, director of NSF's climate and large scale dynamics program, which funded the research. "These results will stimulate further research into the complex natural and anthropogenic processes influencing these tropical cyclone trends and characteristics."

Webster is currently attempting to determine the basic role of hurricanes in the climate of the planet. "The thing they do more than anything is cool the oceans by evaporating the water and then redistributing the oceans' tropical heat to higher latitudes," he said.

"But we don't know a lot about how evaporation from the ocean surface works when the winds get up to around 100 miles per hour, as they do in hurricanes," said Webster, who adds that this physical understanding will be crucial to connecting trends in hurricane intensity to overall climate change.

"If we can understand why the world sees about 85 named storms a year and not, for example, 200 or 25, then we might be able to say that what we're seeing is consistent with what we'd expect in a global warming scenario. Without this understanding, a forecast of the number and intensity of tropical storms in a future warmer world would be merely statistical extrapolation."

From: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/20...anestudy.shtml

This is back in 2005. 4 Hurricane seasons ago. Since then, 2 category 5s and 5 category 4's in the Atlantic. The funny thing is, 2006 and 2009 were El Nino years so there was a distinct lack of strong cyclonic activity. During EL Nino years, the Atlantic doesn't see that many major hurricanes. Lets look at the Pacific in 2006 and 2009 shall we?

In 2006: 2 category 4s and a category 5. In 2009: 2 category 4s and a category 5. Both years saw over 19 storms, 19 in 2006 and 21 in 2009.

Data taken from:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2009/
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2009/
(change the year in the url to see the desired year. Data as far back as 1948 for the Eastern Pacific and pre-1900 for the Atlantic)

Pote i think your forgeting that the 2 guys that USE to run the national hurricane center ran it off of data provided by the scientists your so proud of. What happened to them? Oh yeah they were fired because companies were spending millions of dollars a year in prep for the season for none to show up year after year.

So the number of named storms has increased globally. So what what does it prove? The charts are to say the least incomplete. We've only been using weather radar since 1959 and it wasn't that strong of a system to begin with. So now we can cover the globe with weather radar and look what happens. All of a sudden we see storms that need names that we didn't even know were there before. It's a weak arguement to say the numbers have doubled knowing full well how far radar systems have come since the time frame being used.

**Fovezer** · 02-13-10, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Yeah thats why there is no contravercy over the issue what so ever. LOL

There isn't. Not among scientists. Just like there isn't any controversy over evolution. Or gravity. Or any other scientific issue. Sure, there may be some minor disagreements, but no controversy. The "controversy" exists only in the public sphere and it is propagated by misinformation from deniers. The problem with deniers is that they like to ignore the actual science and focus way too much on political aspect as if that has any effect on whether it exists or not.

**deathgodusmc** · 02-13-10, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Yeah thats why there is no contravercy over the issue what so ever. LOL

There isn't. Not among scientists. Just like there isn't any controversy over evolution. Or gravity. Or any other scientific issue. Sure, there may be some minor disagreements, but no controversy. The "controversy" exists only in the public sphere and it is propagated by misinformation from deniers. The problem with deniers is that they like to ignore the actual science and focus way too much on political aspect as if that has any effect on whether it exists or not.

Keep telling yourself that maybe someday you'll even believe it.