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

No veo ningún problema en ese mail de Mann.

Se queja a gente de confianza de que su trabajo va a ser criticado, en su opinión con manipulaciones y con un paper que no está revisado correctamente. Cuando dice "no conocemos a nadie que haya revisado este paper" no se refiere a alguien de confianza a quien puedan presionar, sino simplemente a alguien conocido cuyo nombre les suene la comunidad. No dice "vaya hombre me han pillado el chanchullo que hice ¿que hacemos?" que es lo que podría esperarse si fuese cierto que manipuló a sabiendas. Recordemos que es un e-mail confidencial a gente de confianza, supuestamente involucrados en "la mayor mentira del siglo". Dice algunas cosas bastante fuertes de la revista que va a publicar la crítica, estaría cabreado, con razón o sin ella, es una reacción mas de alguien que se siente atacado injustamente que de alguien que ha manipulado  a conciencia y está conspirando para que no se sepa.

Ojo, y yo creo que el trabajo de Mann ha sido criticado con fundamento, por ejemplo por Esper et al. De ahí a decir que se confundió a propósito va un trecho.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5563/2250

  habia entendido que NO le revisarian nada.

Cita de: Môr Cylch en Lunes 30 Noviembre 2009 22:50:44 pm

Markel me vas a decir que el hecho de que el Co2 se un gas de efecto invernadero cosa que si es verdad es prueba suficiente para acusarlo de ser el responsable de la subida de las temperaturas?

El Vapor de agua es un gas con mayor presencia y con un efecto invernadero mayor,

Pero es un feedback, no un forzamiento. Es decir, grosso modo la cantidad de vapor de agua en la atmósfera es una función de la temperatura. Si un forzamiento radiativo como el del CO2 aumenta la temperatura, entonces aumenta la cantidad de vapor de agua que aumenta más la temperatura. Pero el culpable en primer lugar del aumento sería el CO2, no el vapor.

Citar

que sabemos de él, se ha medido cuantificado? porque no se habla nada de él?

Sí que se habla, sí.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/

Citar

No entiendes que si desconoces los mecanismos climáticos y los pesos de todos los componentes en la ecuación cuando intentas explicar algo corres el evidente riesgo de adjudicar en este caso al Co2 un papel que no tiene, y luego aceptar que es asi porque modelos imperfectos ajustan los datos? Pues eso será así en un hipotetico mundo que se comportará como nuestro modelo, pero no lo es en nuestro mundo, y también sabes que los modelos se ajustan con una parte de la serie.

Por tanto durante el intervalo de tiempo en el que los mecanismos climaticos sigan comportandose igual el modelos que hemos ajustado atribuyendo falsamente al Co2 el papel preponderante que no tiene, el ajuste será perfecto, pero cuando los verdaderos actores principales cambian se cae todo como un castillo de naipes.

Ya ahora mismo los modelos estan fallando en su previsión porque varios factores han cambiado, si el modelos fuese bueno eso no estaria pasando. Ergo el modelos es inadecuado, por lo tanto el modelo no es prueba de nada, y si el modelo no es prueba de nada, lo que quiere decir que si tu introduces las variables naturales que conoces y corres el modelo y no se ajustan no significa nada ni prueba nada porque tu modelo es erroneo.

De hecho los modelos no son ni verdaderos ni falsos. Son aproximaciones, y si la aproximación es suficientemente buena, pues genial. Con un modelo usando las leyes de newton puedes enviar una sonda a Neptuno, pero no puedes hacer funcionar un sistema gps apropiadamente por ejemplo.
Pero los modelos tampoco son la única línea de evidencia.

Citar

Por tanto repito que pruebas hay que demuestran inequivocamente que el calentamiento es producto del Co2, tanto aumento de temperatura por tanto aumento de Co2 y como se ha llegado a esa conclusión. Todas las que he visto hasta ahora se basan al final en modelos y eso no vale un pimiento y lo sabes  

Ahora mismo estaba leyendo alguien que lo explicaba perfectamente, y dada la hora, copio y pego
"We know it is due to the greenhouse effect because of the pattern of warming. If it was due to the greenhouse effects, we would expect more warming towards the poles, more warming at night, and cooling of the stratosphere. If it were due to the sun, we would expect more warming towards the equator, more warming during the day, and stratospheric warming. These are predictions made before the measurements. When we actually looked at these, we see more warming towards the poles, more warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

We know that the change is due primarily to CO2 and to a lesser extent methane by measuring the values. Water is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but it is in equilibrium in the atmosphere. If you add more water, it just comes out again as precipitation in a period of days. So you can’t directly change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That means it can amplify changes in temperature, but not cause them directly (at least on the time scales we are talking about). Changes in CO2 and methane, however, have impacts that last for decades if not centuries. That is why changes in CO2 levels and methane levels matter. And we are seeing substantial increases in both CO2 and methane. Other gases can also cause warming but exist in far too small amounts to make much of a difference.

We know that the CO2 and methane come from humans because of the isotope concentrations. Plants selectively use carbon 13, and carbon 14 decays after a period of time. So fossils fuels, old carbon derived from plants, should have more carbon 13 and little or not carbon 14. Based on the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere we can tell that the majority of the CO2 comes from old plant-based carbon (the only major source of which is fossil fuels), and the rest is from new plant-based carbon (the only major source of which is burning plants, and the only major change in that is due to humans).

So the logic goes as follows: we know the world is warming, we know the warming is caused primarily by changes in the greenhouse effect, and we know the changes in the greenhouse effect are being caused almost exclusively by changes in CO2 and methane concentration, and we know that the change CO2 and methane concentration are being produced almost exclusively by humans. Therefore humans are the primary source of the warming.

These are not hunches, they are not guesses, they are not just based on humans being here, they are empirically-measured facts. So if you want to dispute global warming you must show which of these facts is wrong, or show where the flaw in the logic is."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29#comment-228849
saludos

Anda mira uno que no sabe que la combustión produce H20   y calor residual. Cuantas teracalorias hemos introducido en el sistema? Cuanto vapor de agua?  

No se sabe, que me dices del hecho de que la mayoria de los observatorios esten dentro de las islas de calor?

Preguntas y más preguntas y la unica respuesta El CO2 es todo poderoso y amen   cuanta simplicidad para un sistema tan complejo  

¿cabe la posibilidad de que todo esto sea un montaje?

no me cuadra para nada todo esto, ......

¿cabe la posibilidad de que todo esto sea un montaje?

no me cuadra para nada todo esto, ......

Piensa en la trinidad Calentamiento---> Co2 ---> Petroleo y se hará la luz.

La cuestión era cuanto tiempo podrian los estados cuestear todo esto, y pudiera ser que ya no estan en disposición de mantener la cortina de humo. Ya se verá en Copenhague

¿cabe la posibilidad de que todo esto sea un montaje?

no me cuadra para nada todo esto, ......

Si, no te fies, ni de tu padre 

Salduso

..." Ya se verá en Copenhague"...

¿En Copenhague?      

Phil Jones se aparta temporalmente del cargo de director del CRU mientras se lleva a cabo una investigación:
Phil Jones steps down – pending independent review
"Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.
We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

Anda mira uno que no sabe que la combustión produce H20  y calor residual. Cuantas teracalorias hemos introducido en el sistema?

Te lo digo de manera fácil. La media es 1kw/humano. Es decir, del orden de 10¹⁰ kw. La media solar en la superficie era 300 W/m²?x 4 pi (6 10⁶)² ~ 10¹⁴, es decir, 1/10,000 es la proporción. A mí me suena irrelavante, ¿y a tí? 

Cuanto vapor de agua? 

[¿Llevas mucho por este foro?. ¿Nadie se ha dignado a explicarte que el vapor de agua está en equilibrio en la atmósfera?. Es decir, que ya puede echar todo el que quieras, que volverá a condensarse en periodo de días.

Pregunta tonta. ¿Es costumbre en este foro cargarse los conceptos básicos con tal de ganar un debate o algo así? 

Vale necesito que alguien  me haga un calculo..
Cada humano tiene una temperatura interna de 36º.
¿Que le pasaría al clima del planeta si cada 2 segundos encendiesemos una estufa electrica a esa temperatura?
<a href="http://www.poodwaddle.com/earthclock.swf" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.poodwaddle.com/earthclock.swf</a>

pero si.. podria ser las x toneladas de CO2 que se emiten por segundo...

Phil Jones se aparta temporalmente del cargo de director del CRU mientras se lleva a cabo una investigación:
Phil Jones steps down – pending independent review
"Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.
We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

Ya era hora de que se tomaran medidas, pensaba que se iba  a dejar correr... por cierto  y a Gavin y al resto del team?
Lo de indenpendiente, habrá que verlo... Es difícil en estos casos..Espero que no sea peer reviewed

Citar

Cuanto vapor de agua? 

¿Llevas mucho por este foro?. ¿Nadie se ha dignado a explicarte que el vapor de agua está en equilibrio en la atmósfera?. Es decir, que ya puede echar todo el que quieras, que volverá a condensarse en periodo de días.

Sobre el papel del vapor de agua venimos hablando hace tiempo aquí:
https://foro.tiempo.com/climatologia/vapor+de+agua+retroalimentacion+radiativa-t79069.0.html

No se si lo habeis puesto ..si es asi disculpas.


The Wall street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html



Climategate: Follow the Money By BRET STEPHENS..




 Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate-change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.