El CRU (Climate Research Unit) de la Universidad de East Anglia, HACKEADO...

púes la explicación que da no es esa,

..In the upper atmosphere, the radiative effects of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, become more pronounced and produce a cooling, rather than a warming effect. At these altitudes, CO2 is optically thin and is unable to contain outgoing infrared radiation; thermal energy is transferred by collisions with ambient gas to the excited states of CO2 molecules and then lost to space via its infrared radiation.
..

pero lo dicho, estos temas tratarlos en su espacio, que la estratosfera tiene más de un tema abierto,

aquí lo que tenga que ver explícitamente con la manipulación que se refleja en la documentación extraída del CRU.

Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, responds to the leak of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit with a statement (posted on Dot Earth).  He writes in part:

    The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.

The statement does not really address the contents of the revealed documents nor adequately respond to the resulting charges.  Like those  from the CRU, this response will do little if anything to quiet the controversy.  Megan McArdle is similarly underwhelmed by Pachauri’s defense in an interview.

Meanwhile, Dr. Judith Curry has an open letter to climate researchers which, like her prior posting, is far more responsive and productive.  She writes in part:

    If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.

MIT’s Michael Schrage has more thoughts on the corrosive effect of secrecy on science.

   The malice, mischief and Machiavellian manoeuvrings revealed in the illegally hacked megabytes of emails from the University of East Anglia’s prestigious Climate Research Unit, for example, offers a useful paradigm of contemporary scientific conflict. Science may be objective; scientists emphatically are not. This episode illustrates what too many universities, professional societies, and research funders have irresponsibly allowed their scientists to become. Shame on them all.

More Responses to the CRU E-mail Leaks

My favorite moment in the Climategate/Climaquiddick scandal currently roiling the “climate change” racket was Stuart Varney’s interview on Fox News with the actor Ed Begley Jr. — star of the 1980s medical drama St. Elsewhere but latterly better known, as is the fashion with members of the thespian community, as an “activist.” He’s currently in a competition with Bill Nye (“the Science Guy”) to see who can have the lowest “carbon footprint.” Pistols at dawn would seem the quickest way of resolving that one, but presumably you couldn’t get a reality series out of it. Anyway, Ed was relaxed about the mountain of documents recently leaked from Britain’s Climate Research Unit in which the world’s leading climate-change warm-mongers e-mail each other back and forth on how to “hide the decline” and other interesting matters.

Nothing to worry about, folks. “We’ll go down the path and see what happens in peer-reviewed studies,” said Ed airily. “Those are the key words here, Stuart. ‘Peer-reviewed studies.’”

Hang on. Could you say that again more slowly so I can write it down? Not to worry. Ed said it every 12 seconds, as if it were the magic charm that could make all the bad publicity go away. He wore an open-necked shirt, and, although I don’t have a 76” inch HDTV, I wouldn’t have been surprised to find a talismanic peer-reviewed amulet nestling in his chest hair for additional protection. “If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it,” insisted Ed. “Don’t get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. ‘Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes out in peer-reviewed studies . . . ”

CRU’s Tree-Ring Circus

...
Amid the thousands of files apparently lifted from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.  

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of "energy agencies" they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust -- are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting "new energy" technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU "potential funding sources" have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.
...

CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists' Funding Hypocrisy

AGW alarmists, led by the “hockey team”, have dismissed criticisms that urban heat-island effects have been distorting surface temperature measurements upwards. Now Vincent Gray, a reviewer of the 2007 IPCC report, says this: not only is the single paper on which this dismissal is based fraudulent, the hockey team knows it’s fraudulent and keeps citing it anyway!

Paleoclimatologist Eduardo Zorita writes: “I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files.”

A Franco-Russian geomagnetics research group who was rebuffed when it tried to get primary temperature datasets from the CRU has assembled its own series of average temperature efforts by going back to ground-station measurements that the hockey team has never had an opportunity to “correct”. The result?

    Aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about 1 C and have not shown any warming since. This pattern cannot be explained by rising carbon dioxide concentrations, unless some critical threshold was reached in 1987; nor can it be explained by climate models.

The report on this is well worth reading, as it goes into some detail on how the geomagneticians’ statistical methods produced a different — and much higher quality — result than the IPCC did. Among other things, they used daily rather than monthly averaging and avoided suspect techniques for statistically inferring temperature at places it hadn’t actually been measured.

Interestingly, their calculation of average temperature in the U.S. says “The warmest period was in 1930, slightly above the temperatures at the end of the 20th century. “. Could this inconvenient warm spell be what the VERY ARTIFICAL correction was intended to suppress?

I can almost pity the poor AGW spinmeisters. Perhaps they still think they can put a political fix in to limit the damage from the CRU leak. But what’s happening now is that other scientists who have seen the business end of the hockey team’s fraud, stonewalling, and bullying are beginning to speak out. The rate of collapse is accelerating.

AGW fraud unravels at an accelerating pace

Impresionante _00_!!!

Destaco esta increible gráfica del grupo franco-ruso:



¿Como puede nadie que quiera llamarse científico negar los datos sobre una teoría?
Menos mal que Newton o Einstein no se negaron a publicar sus datos. Que vergüenza  Como se atreve el IPCC a aceptar teorías de alguien que no ofrece datos sobre su investigación?

Fuente: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

Y mejor no hablemos de algunas fuentes de financiación del CRU. ¿Es licito aceptar dinero para una investigación contra el cancer de pulmon de las tabacaleras? ¿Es lícito que el IPCC acepte este tipo de fuentes para sus informes financiadas por dinero de empresas de energías renovables? 

He leído perfectamente.

No lo has hecho y lo demuestras aquí
 

Lo que si sabemos es que en el OCM las temperaturas subieron y luego bajaron. No hay que hacer suposiciones de y si...

El "que pasaría sí..." se refiere a qué pasaría si el análisis del palo de hockey fuese incorrecto y si la temperatura del OCM estuviese por encima de la actual. ¿Invalidaría eso necesariamente que el calentamiento global actual es antropogénico?. No necesariamente. Por lo que explicaba de los efectos físicos del CO2 en el equilibrio radiativo de la atmósfera. Eso es lo que pretende explicar el post.

hay que explicar las causas de ese cambio en el OCM; la causa natural, no puede haber otra, que lo originó. Atendiendo a las imágenes sacadas de los propios  informes del  IPCC y reflejadas en mi post anterior, no es posible hacerlo. Se contradicen: no hay causas naturales para el actual cambio y por tanto tampoco puede haberlas para el OCM, pero existió

.  

No veo la lógica de esa afirmación. El OCM pudo ocurrir por la razón que fuese y el calentamiento actual ser antropogénico.

Luego algo no se está modelizando correctamente: la variabilidad natural.

Y por supuesto no hablemos de quien pudiera estar empleando el ejemplo del hombre de paja... este tópic trata de cómo se han manipulado los datos.  

Repasa el intercambio. No soy yo quién extrapola de la interpretación de un email a toda una ciencia.

saludos

Si estás dispuesto a cargarte la conservación de la energía, pues todo vale. Mira, el razonamiento es sencillos. Hay más CO2 en la atmósfera. La capa de equilibrio radiativo se traslada a mayor altura. Más altura significa más frío. Más frío significa menos emisión infrarroja. Menos emisión infrarroja significa menos pérdida energética. Luego la temperatura tiene que aumentar.

Te contesto en https://foro.tiempo.com/climatologia/fisica+del+efecto+invernadero-t101628.0.html;msg2215711#msg2215711 para no desviar el tema.

Cita de: metragirta en Sábado 28 Noviembre 2009 20:41:25 pm

hay que explicar las causas de ese cambio en el OCM; la causa natural, no puede haber otra, que lo originó. Atendiendo a las imágenes sacadas de los propios  informes del  IPCC y reflejadas en mi post anterior, no es posible hacerlo. Se contradicen: no hay causas naturales para el actual cambio y por tanto tampoco puede haberlas para el OCM, pero existió

. 

No veo la lógica de esa afirmación. El OCM pudo ocurrir por la razón que fuese y el calentamiento actual ser antropogénico.

O el calentamiento actual puede ocurrir, al menos en parte, por la misma razón que causó el OCM. Y ser, sólo en otra parte, antropogénico.

Habría que seguir investigando, no dar una teoría por cierta y desechar la otra prematuramente.

Que es lo que ha hecho el IPCC.

En cualquier caso, hay otros topics para hablar de atribución del calentamiento.
Por ejemplo: https://foro.tiempo.com/climatologia/calentamiento+por+efecto+antropogenico+natural-t46476.0.html

púes la explicación que da no es esa,

Citar

..In the upper atmosphere, the radiative effects of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, become more pronounced and produce a cooling, rather than a warming effect. At these altitudes, CO2 is optically thin and is unable to contain outgoing infrared radiation; thermal energy is transferred by collisions with ambient gas to the excited states of CO2 molecules and then lost to space via its infrared radiation.
..

Nada hombre, como te parecía extraño lo del enfriamiento de la estratosfera, quería ayudarte a darte una razonamiento sencillo. El fenómeno es más complicado, pero está estrechamente relacionado con el hecho de que las capas de emisión se trasladen a mayor altura a medida que la concentración de dióxido de carbono aumenta.

pero lo dicho, estos temas tratarlos en su espacio, que la estratosfera tiene más de un tema abierto,

aquí lo que tenga que ver explícitamente con la manipulación que se refleja en la documentación extraída del CRU.

Pues nada. Mi último mensaje sobre el asunto.

saludos

si, a medida que la realidad no sigue a los modelos, la explicación viene de "más arriba", eso es precisamente lo que estamos viendo en este tema

Comisión de investigación: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm 

Otra noticia, más o menos equilibrada: The great climate change science scandal

Entrada en el blog de Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/

Abren expediente a Michael el Hombre por culpa de los emails:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/mann-to-investigated-by-penn-state-university-review/

la única salida, medio digna, es que todos los datos y modelos usados en los informes sean públicos.

Abren expediente a Michael el Hombre por culpa de los emails:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/mann-to-investigated-by-penn-state-university-review/

Sí, pero parece que la Uni de Penn sólo tiene intención de cubrir el expediente.
A ver...