Embattled UK climate scientist steps down

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:53 PM GMT on December 03, 2009

Share this Blog
3
+

The embattled director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), Dr. Phil Jones, announced that he will be temporarily standing aside as director. An independent review of his conduct in light of the emails illegally hacked from his computers last month is in progress. In a press release, Professor Jones said: "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support".

The University and the police are investigating the break-in, and it is currently unknown if this was the act of an insider or an external break-in. I think it is highly unlikely this was the work of an insider in a whistle-blower type of action, since a computer at realclimate.org was hacked into the same week (via a computer in Turkey), and the criminal attempted to upload the emails stolen from CRU to the realclimate.org server. This is not the sort of action a whistleblower would do. Dr. Gavin Schmidt of realclimate.org said in a comment yesterday that the CRU break-in appeared to have been done from the outside, into a backup mail server. It is unlikely the hacker acted alone, since hackers aren't typically intimately familiar with the details of the climate change science debate. The emails and code stolen were selectively culled by someone who appeared to have considerable expertise in climate science.

What did Dr. Jones do wrong?
So, what did Dr. Jones do wrong? For starters, he should have confronted the allegations raised by his critics immediately and talked candidly to the press about some of the specific accusations being made. For example, one of the emails contained the statement that he would like to "redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is" to exclude two questionable papers from the IPCC report. Well, that's not something a good scientist should seriously advocate, and is an impossibility, in any case. No one can redefine the peer-reviewed literature, since the rules for this are well-established an not subject to change. When I read the comment in the context it was made, it reads as a joke. There is no discussion in the hacked emails about how to go about redefining the peer-reviewed literature. In the end, the two papers Jones was referring to with this comment, McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), ended up being cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report. Those intent on discrediting the science of human-caused global warming are spinning the comment differently, creating a controversy about something that is impossible to do, and was not being seriously suggested. Jones should have immediately spoken up to quash the hype on this comment.

The "trick" to "hide the decline"
Another area of concern is over a graph Dr. Jones helped construct in 1999 showing the "hockey stick" of Earth's surface temperature going back 1,000 years. This graph combined instrumental measurements made since the 1800s with older paleoclimate data (including data from tree rings) to show a continuous 1,000 year record of Earth's temperatures. The paleoclimate data after 1960 show a bogus decline in Earth's temperatures that does not agree with what modern thermometers have been measuring, due to a well-known variation in tree ring thickness as a function of time, referred to as "the decline". Thus, Jones elected to toss out the bogus paleoclimate data (using a "trick" to "hide the decline") rather than present it in the graph. The graph was not properly labeled to show this was done, so viewers of the graph would have had needed to be familiar with a 1998 paper published in Nature or the 1999 paper referenced in the caption on the graph, which explained this well-known data issue. The graph that Jones used his "trick" on was put into a 1999 report called the "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate". The report was given to policy makers, but was never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. No reputable climate scientist believes that the paleoclimate data since 1960 is of higher quality than the instrumental record (this is discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report). In order to make the "hokey stick" graph less confusing, removing "the decline" from the tree ring data is a reasonable thing to do--provided one labels the graph properly. The graph was not properly labeled. Does Jones' "trick" and failure to properly label the graph constitute data falsification, or was it merely sloppy science? The hacked emails contain no suggestions that the "trick" was done to intentionally fool people, and the "trick" never appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including the IPCC reports. In Dr. Jones' words, "This is well-known and is called the "decline" or "divergence". The use of the term "hiding the decline" was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure".




Figure 1. The WMO 1999 "hockey stick" figure (top) with climate reconstructions and instrumental temperatures merged, and a version (bottom) with the climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately. Note "the decline" in the temperature obtained from tree ring data (green curve) in the bottom curve. Image credit: University of East Anglia.

Global warming contrarians are spinning the "trick" as reason to discredit the "hockey stick", claiming that the data was falsified to hide the fact that tree rings were telling the real story. Since the hockey stick was falsified, some claim, the entire science behind human-caused global warming needs to be questioned. This is plain ludicrous. The graph was never published in a scientific journal. Several updated versions of the "hockey stick" graph have been published in the ten years since the disputed graph was produced, and the "hockey stick" can be reproduced in essentially the same form excluding the controversial tree rings, using other paleoclimate data such as boreholes (See Mann et al., 2008, Figure 2). Furthermore, the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused global warming is not based solely upon the "hockey stick" and the CRU data used for the last 150 years of the hockey stick graph. There are three separate data sets of global temperatures maintained by NASA, the CRU, and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, that all show essentially the same global warming. We also have evidence from nature herself in the form of plants and animals expanding their ranges poleward, the record loss of Arctic sea ice in 2007 and record loss of multi-year Arctic sea ice this year, the shrinking of mountain glaciers, reductions in the length of freeze season in many Northern Hemisphere lakes and rivers, the shifting of spring blooms earlier in most regions of the world, and on and on and on. Again, Jones should have spoken up immediately to kill the ridiculous hype being pushed by global warming contrarians about the importance of a 10-year old graph that is now scientifically irrelevant, and was never published.


Figure 2. The "hockey stick" of global temperature anomalies since 300 A.D., as published in a 2008 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Mann et al.. Even if one excludes tree rings (blue curve), the hockey stick looks the same.

Resistance to releasing data to other researchers
The hacked emails also show that Dr. Jones resisted releasing his data to contrarians and urged others to delete emails regarding Freedom Of Information (FOI) related requests. Many countries protect their weather data under an international agreement called World Meteorological Organization Resolution 40, which prohibits the data from being made public (this is why wunderground can't give out the UKMET model forecasts on our web site, for example). About 5% of the CRU data fell in that category, making release illegal. However, deleting emails related to FOI requests is inadvisable and implies one has something to hide. The investigation should certainly pursue the issue of whether Dr. Jones properly handled the requests to turn over his data to outside researchers. Ideally, weather data documenting Earth's climate history should be free to everyone on the planet (I am not a big fan of WMO Resolution 40). However, another aspect to this issue is the time it takes for the scientists involved to prepare the data for release. Large, complicated data sets require extensive documentation and access to related computer codes in order to process them, and making the data available to every amateur investigator interested in the data puts an unfair burden on the scientists who maintain the data sets. In particular, an amateur climate science investigator named Stephen McIntyre, who runs the web site Climate Audit, has created such an issue. McIntyre, a retired mining executive and an investor, is not a professional scientist, but has been successful identifying several technical errors made in the published literature. He has also generated a huge amount of misleading and incorrect information over the years, and has done a tremendous amount of damage to the understanding of climate science. McIntyre is intent on discrediting the science of human-caused global warming--presumably for ideological reasons, since he has no obvious ties to the fossil fuel industry--and has generated a large number of Freedom of Information requests to further his cause. One of the hacked emails, from Dr. Ben Santer, complained that McIntyre's FOI requests were intrusive and unreasonable with no scientific justification or explanation given, and appeared to be a calculated strategy to divert Santer's attention and focus away from research. It's worth reading Santer's reaction to the hacked email affair to learn more. Given such tactics by McIntyre, Dr. Jones' resistance to FOI requests from McIntyre is understandable, but appears to have been poorly handled.

The science of human-caused global warming remains unaffected
None of the hacked emails reveal any conspiracy to publish falsified or "fudged" material in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The science of human-caused global warming will require no revision as a result of this affair. Baseless accusations of fraud, data manipulation, and conspiracy against climate change scientists stemming from the hacked emails are being massively hyped by the Manufactured Doubt industry in an effort to discredit climate scientists, since no flaw with the science can be found. Most of the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad, so if you can create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion, you can win--or at least buy time, lots of it. The hacked email affair is all about politics, not science. Dr. Jones is an excellent scientist, but unfortunately was over-matched as a politician. It was hardly a fair fight--one scientist against the political might of the mightiest PR campaign against science ever waged, armed with some selectively culled stolen emails taken out of context.

Other posts in this series
The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy
Is more CO2 beneficial for Earth's ecosystems?

Next post
I'm working on a post called, "Don't shoot the messenger", and plan to run this Sunday or Monday.

Our Climate Change expert, Dr. Ricky Rood, will be in Copenhagen for Monday's start to the crucial COP15 climate change treaty negotiations. Be sure to tune into his blog for updates on the talks. Wunderground has provided financial support for several University of Michigan students to attend the talks, and I may be featuring portions of their blogs over the coming weeks.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 425 - 375

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Quoting JFLORIDA:


Oh you want technical, Ok you up the ante lets REQUIRE it from now on - deal?


Sounds good, peer reviewed are a lot better than something you find on google search.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
LOL! Thought you disappeared there for a while!

I was snarfing down my lunch...priorities, junky, priorities....


Did you get any junkpile frolic time in there?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mrnicktou:
Its funny how these "Global Warming" people always want to argue whenever the temperatures are amazingly cold. Houston is going to get snow tomorrow on December 4th!!! When was the last time we got snow this early? Our average high has been just a few degrees above the Average low each day over the past week and you people want to argue the Earth is heating up HILARIOUS!!!!

Again, you're missing the big temperature. It was only cold in Texas because the giantic Gulf low pulled cold Arctic air across the Continental United States. This pattern is consistent with El Nino and a strong Arctic Oscillation, both of which can be enhanced by global warming. It might have been cold in Texas, but in Southern Ontario on Tuesday, I saw a mosquito and it's December (we never see mosquitoes this late). The difference is that you were on the western side of the low and I was on the eastern side, and we got a night of heavy rain.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This will stir the pot, copying and pasting email from a met in Houston

Winter Storm Event likely Friday with historic accumulating snowfall over SE TX.


Winter Storm Watch will be in effect from 600am Friday morning to midnight Friday…watch will likely be upgraded to a warning later tonight or early Friday.

Discussion:

Arctic boundary slicing through C TX moving toward the coast with temperatures falling into the lower 40’s and upper 30’s north of this boundary. Powerful trough/short wave over New Mexico is rounding toward W TX with snow breaking out and being reported now at Lubbock. Impressive isentropic lift and jet dynamics come to bear on the region after daybreak Friday. Visible images show rapid N expansion of S TX moisture/cloud shield suggesting the GFS may in fact be getting ready to nail this event from Monday. Things appear to be coming together just as the GFS has been suggesting. With this in mind will go ahead and bump up to 70% chance of snow for Friday in line with the GFS output and mirror accumulations close to this model…especially since the 18Z NAM is falling in line with this thinking and the other drier models have swung toward the wetter solutions. Event is starting to look very similar to the Great 2004 Christmas snowstorm…although totals do not look as likely as in 2004.

This is one of the most highly forecast snow events I have ever seen with some near excellent model agreement…with that in mind a few things could still go wrong and prevent the accumulation totals below. I am glad we only deal with this now once every year!

Accumulation:

Will leave these unchanged from the previous thinking…will probably tinker some late tonight or early Friday.

Austin to College Station to Huntsville:

Will be lowering totals in this region as focus is shifting southward. A dusting to 2” is possible starting early Friday morning.

Columbus to Conroe to Lake Livingston:

This area should be on the north side of the heavier snow band with accumulations of 1-3 inches possible. Should see onset of snow by early to mid morning with accumulations by late morning as temperatures fall to freezing.

US 59 from Victoria to Liberty Co including metro Houston:

Accumulations in the 2-4” range across this area including metro Houston with some areas possibly picking up 6”. Will onset snow between 1000am and noon Friday and continue into early evening. May need to add moderate and heavy snow with visibilities tanking to below 1/4th of a mile at times in heavy snow bands. Could see up to 1” per hour of accumulation. Given the possible increased snowfall rates…not only bridges, but surface streets may become issues by Friday afternoon as surface temperatures fall to and below freezing.

Coastal Counties:

Will need to add accumulation to the coastal counties given the latest data with 1-2” likely including the beaches. Will see snow onset before noon in the Victoria area and spread NE up the coast by early afternoon. May need to go even higher on the accumulation in this region if the models continue to trend southward.

Actions:

Same as the earlier e-mail.

I have had several questions regarding timing and road impacts. Best I can tell is onset of SN over Montgomery/Waller Counties in the 900-1100am then Fort Bend/N and W Harris 1000am-noon and the rest of Harris, Brazoria/Galveston noon-200pm. Initial SN will melt on impact until air temp reaches freezing or snowfall rates exceed melting rates. Once SN begins to fall expect about 1-2 hours before bridges/overpasses ice/glaze over. Remember this is snow falling at your destination not your location.

Travel will become increasingly hazardous Friday afternoon as snowfall rates increase in heavy banding. May see a period of heavy snow with visibilities down to 1/4 or less or a mile in meso scale snow bands. Quick accumulations even of surface streets will be likely under the heavy snow bands.

Freezing Temperatures:

May need to go lower on overnight lows Saturday morning given expected snow cover on the ground. Could see lower 20’s in a few locations N/W and mid 20’s into several locations…even as far S as VCT. Will see little warming Saturday as sun light goes into snow melt instead of low level warming.

Request:

I rarely have request of folks, but am asking for you help as this event unfolds on Friday. There is a general lack of good surface data W, SW, and NW or in the area from College Station to Victoria. Any persons that could provide P-type information and intensities it would be greatly appreciated.

Next update will be Friday morning unless there are significant changes this evening.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"How have we gotten out of the EVERY Ice Age if we have not had man-made global warming?"

Wooly Mammoth flatulance?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Global Dimming

Here is the nail in the coffin for solar forcing GW since the 50's.


Ya that looks like a creditable source, I found it on google search so it must be correct. Give me a break man, your sources are not the best either. Use peer reviewed articles.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
416. xcool



Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mrnicktou:
Its funny how these "Global Warming" people always want to argue whenever the temperatures are amazingly cold. Houston is going to get snow tomorrow on December 4th!!! When was the last time we got snow this early? Our average high has been just a few degrees above the Average low each day over the past week and you people want to argue the Earth is heating up HILARIOUS!!!!


Global warming does not dictate that unseasonably cold temperatures and consequent winter events cannot occur from time to time.

In fact, one could argue that global warming intensifies such events, by providing more water vapor, and thus, more instability.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LOL! Thought you disappeared there for a while!

I was snarfing down my lunch...priorities, junky, priorities....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
399.
I think you are missing the point entirely. It is Global Warming we are talking about. Not the weather in Houston.


Oh so it not being cold in Houston and Texas or SE U.S. for all that matters in Global Warming?

ANSWER THIS QUESTION ANYBODY!!!

"How have we gotten out of the EVERY Ice Age if we have not had man-made global warming?"

You can't thats why JFLORIDA other person who thinks they know everything you CAN'T
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LST--thats IT!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
LST. You are a potter too!
I just KNEW there was something about you...
heheheh
Regards to the Flood!


LOL...I haven't had a chance to play in the "mud" for a VERY long time, and I miss it terribly. First thing I'm doing when we win the lottery is building some studio space, buying a wheel and finishing my Raku kiln!

I'll pass along the greetings to Flood. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't been here today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
386. JFLORIDA 1:34 PM PST on December 03, 2009
What happened to the bloggers we had here that actually sources scientific literature and made reasonable arguments.

I am worried they were all chased off.


no, I'm still here!!!!!

:)


LOL! Thought you disappeared there for a while!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
399.
I think you are missing the point entirely. It is Global Warming we are talking about. Not the weather in Houston.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's SNOW TIME!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OK, Pottery - I think I found the metalwork you're talking about...gorgeous stuff!! And a good place to buy it, too, along the same lines as the jewelry site I posted earlier.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate-Gate Scandal
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
By Diane Macedo


Jon Stewart discusses leak of controversial emails exchanged by British climate researchers.

ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.

"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data – in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.

Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, "none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. ... This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal."

The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks' Climate-gate coverage.

"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday.

Related Stories
· Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down

· Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data

· Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

But during that time, the Institute says, "the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' 'minor' car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner."

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacted to the findings saying, "To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism."

That left Stewart to fill the void — with analysis of the comedic variety.

The comedian mocked the scientists for discarding the raw data used to formulate the adjusted temperature data that much of the scientific community agrees confirms global warming is occurring.

"Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s!" he joked.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
378, Junky.
Good comment.


Thanks Pot. Can I call you Pot or would that be offensive? Heck, Pot may be legal soon!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LST. You are a potter too!
I just KNEW there was something about you...
heheheh
Regards to the Flood!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
377. I find it funny how this has turned into such a conspiracy theory "cover up" against our humanity. The fake outrage gets old after a while. I wonder where all the REAL outrage was over the REAL cover ups (you know, those where people died) during the previous administration.

*** END OF RANT ***

Jon Stewart is funny!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Its funny how these "Global Warming" people always want to argue whenever the temperatures are amazingly cold. Houston is going to get snow tomorrow on December 4th!!! When was the last time we got snow this early? Our average high has been just a few degrees above the Average low each day over the past week and you people want to argue the Earth is heating up HILARIOUS!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
378, Junky.
Good comment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cant wait for the snow to start in Texas, then we can actually talk about the friggin weather going back to the ice age
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
386. JFLORIDA 1:34 PM PST on December 03, 2009
What happened to the bloggers we had here that actually sources scientific literature and made reasonable arguments.

I am worried they were all chased off.


no, I'm still here!!!!!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
LongStrangeTrip post 355.
Nice move!
Look for Haitian craft, especially beaten metalwork (from old barrels etc.) from Haiti. Mirror surrounds, wall pcs, standing figures.
Incredible work, should be available in gift shops with Caribbean stock.
Their Pottery is fantastic too, but I am not sure it is exported.


Thanks, Pottery! I've actually seen some of the metalwork - very colorful and whimsical. Being a potter myself, I'll look for the pottery, too. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. M: "No reputable climate scientist believes that the paleoclimate data since 1960 is of higher quality than the instrumental record"

Of course not. I do believe the point of a paleoclimate proxy diverging from the instrument record is being missed here. The point is that if the tree ring data is so much lower than the instrument record at that time period, I, and others, have little confidence that it does not contain a heavy low bias in the historical record, well before the instrumentation record.

If the recent history is to be bandied about as some spectacular event above and beyond anything seen in thousands of years and our methods of determining the last couple of thousand of years' worth of temp has such a problem when compared to instrumentation, then the marriage of the two in a single plot (and drawing any conclusion dependent on the two) is folly.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
yay, it's finally snowing here a little haha
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting JFLORIDA:
What happened to the bloggers we had here that actually sources scientific literature and made reasonable arguments.

I am worried they were all chased off.


How did we get out of EVERY ice age we have had before without man made global warming?

Answer it please because you can't and won't and BAM the whole we are heating this earth up is a b.s. argument b/c we aren't.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pearlandaggie:
386. there's just no point...it's a wasted effort...


Exactly
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ANTI UP time, chasing off these people and buring them in the ground.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
386. there's just no point...it's a wasted effort...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Winter Storm Watch, Freeze Warning
Statement as of 1:19 PM CST on December 03, 2009


... Winter Storm Watch in effect from Friday morning through
Friday evening...

The National Weather Service in Houston/Galveston has issued a
Winter Storm Watch... which is in effect from Friday morning
through Friday evening.

Rain will develop early Friday morning. High temperatures will be
in the lower 40s in the morning but will fall quickly into the 30s
once the precipitation begins. The rain will get a little heavier
toward noon and become mixed with and change to snow. Periods of
snow are expected during the afternoon. There is a growing
consensus that the heavier precipitation amounts will lie along
and east of US Highway 59. Snow amounts will vary greatly
depending on when the rain changes over to snow. Preliminary
estimates show snow totals of 1 to 2 inches across the area with
some isolated snow totals approaching 5 inches. Most of the snow
accumulations will be on grassy and elevated surfaces. This
situation is still in flux and forecasts could change radically by
Friday morning. Please keep up with the latest forecasts... winter
weather watches... or warnings. The threat of snow is expected to
end overnight as the storm system moves off to the east. Very cold
temperatures are expected Friday night so any residual wet spots
will freeze and elevated bridges will likely have some icy spots.

Precautionary/preparedness actions...

A Winter Storm Watch means there is a potential for significant
snow... sleet... or ice accumulations that may impact travel.
Continue to monitor the latest forecasts.

Roads... bridges... and overpasses in the watch area may become
slick and hazardous. Accumulation of snow or ice on roadways...
bridges and overpasses may make travel treacherous. Exercise
caution if travel is necessary. Motorists should remain alert to
changing weather conditions... and take necessary precautions if
travel is necessary.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
post 377 for some of ya
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Bio electrics, CO2 and climate change:

Intro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_LzzL2jyRc
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbfwo8s7B8
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0hlt6BCKJU
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is an news story on where it comes from.

Link

Quoting TampaTom:


Huh? A gallon of gas weighs about 8 pounds... where'd the extra weight come from?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jeff9641:


I'm gonna see if I can send some rain your way.


Send me a case of Landshark Lagers while you're at it too. Thanks again!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
370. on a tangent, never having been to China, it just blows me away how many things they make. with such a wide array of products manufactured, they must have factories everywhere. it's hard to even visualize...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”


Lol
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting cnaegle:
Seriously Jeff, the problem is that any time you try to have a discussion about the causes of global warming that has anything to do with variables or inputs outside of man made carbon you get the scientific discussion of the debate is over. No reason to talk about it. There is always reason to debate these issues. There are many many variables that influence and drive global temperatures. Many simply can not be explained by man made carbon. We as humans undoubtedly will end up having very little influence on the climate of the earth.


Just the ridiculous rate of deforestation in the world alone could alter our climate. When we also dump billions of metric tons of C02 into the atmosphere each year (along with other pollutants far more harmful) the combination of those two has to add up to some negative effect over time. I don't see how anyone can think it wouldn't have some effect. The degree of that effect is what still needs to be fully determined IMHO.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here we go to stir the pot now...


Climate-Gate Scandal
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
By Diane Macedo


Jon Stewart discusses leak of controversial emails exchanged by British climate researchers.

ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.

"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data – in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.

Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, "none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. ... This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal."

The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks' Climate-gate coverage.

"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday.

Related Stories
· Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down

· Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data

· Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

But during that time, the Institute says, "the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' 'minor' car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner."

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacted to the findings saying, "To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism."

That left Stewart to fill the void — with analysis of the comedic variety.

The comedian mocked the scientists for discarding the raw data used to formulate the adjusted temperature data that much of the scientific community agrees confirms global warming is occurring.

"Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s!" he joked.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LongStrangeTrip post 355.
Nice move!
Look for Haitian craft, especially beaten metalwork (from old barrels etc.) from Haiti. Mirror surrounds, wall pcs, standing figures.
Incredible work, should be available in gift shops with Caribbean stock.
Their Pottery is fantastic too, but I am not sure it is exported.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
one post too early... afternoon Amy :-)

yo, Minne!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 425 - 375

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
55 °F
Overcast