UPDATE: CRU apparently been hacked – ..AGW HOAX revealed...

[brunota2003]

Weren't these same people trying to run around screaming that hurricanes would be wayyy worse because global temperatures were higher, and that there'd be way more devastating Cat 4/5's because of it? guess they didnt quiet their peers fast enough on that one, since it was shot down (because temps are only a tiny cog of the entire machine). What about sea level rises and coast lines worldwide being sunk to the bottom of the sea?

If man made GW is all a hoax, what else of everything they've been "claiming" is as well?

[Air Force Met]

Sooo, assuming all this is real and AGW is really just a large hoax...does that make the hacker a good guy (for exposing the hoax) or a bad guy? (for hacking into a secure server in the first place)

personally, since they have ignored all FOI requests, I consider this similar to a whistle blower. Just my take on it. If they won't comply with law then how do you expose them?

I concure...he/she is a whisle blower and it is an inside job. Someone wasn't happy with the road they've been taking.

[Air Force Met]

Found a site that is doing a lot of the research I have been talking about.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

They are looking carefully at the heat-island effect on weather stations. Lots to see here.

Of note…two cases in California…Orland and Marysville…not that far away from each other. Both reporting for over 100 years. The only diff is one remains (Orland) in the field…and one has been built around. Go to http://www.surfacestations.org/ and look towards the bottom of the page for the pics of each site…then go to links below to see enlarged temp graphs.

Orland – http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... emId=31243
Marysville – http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... emId=57529


Now get this…


Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

Only 10% (class 1&2) of the surveys stations aren’t tainted in some way. 22% are getting a 1-2C error. 61% of the stations are receiving an error of at least 2C-4.9C and 8% are getting a 5C or higher error. By error...this means they are being HEATED because of close proximity to some heat island source...parking lot...concrete...roof...vents...etc.

Urbanization...as I have said...is a BIG reason MEASURED global temps have increased. There are a lot more artificial heating surfaces around these observing sites than there were 50 years ago...or even 30 years ago. Combine that with the PDO and a grand solar max? There's your warming. Even those of you who subscribe to CO2 induced AGW have to be honest and say these are factors...and that those who are pushing CO2 AGW have a bigger agenda and and purposefully disregarding any and all other factors that (like those I listed above) have influenced temps.

I will give an example of what I mean (and what I think is happening...this isn't scientific...just meant to be an example). If the global temps have risen by 1C...and .2C can be explained by the heat island effect...and .4 can be explained by the PDO...and .2 can be explained by the grand solar max...and .2 can be explained by C02...why is it that the IPCC contributes the entire 1C rise to CO2 and doesn't even look at any other contributing factors?

And if it is a .2C factor...what happens when you take away the GSM and make it a GSmin and make that a -.2...and you make the -PDO a -.4? Don't you then do your theory more harm than good because you look like an idiot when your models (based soley on CO2) and predictions are proved entirely wrong?

Jus' sayin'

It could be we are cooling and we don’t even know it…

[jasons2k]

WOW. Totally jaw-dropping. Funny I heard it here first and not on the news...

[Air Force Met]

WOW. Totally jaw-dropping. Funny I heard it here first and not on the news...

Not funny...criminal...

LA Times is now picking up the story. The story is a LOT bigger overseas than it is here. Hopefully our lamestream media will catch a clue.

[artist]

Found a site that is doing a lot of the research I have been talking about.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

They are looking carefully at the heat-island effect on weather stations. Lots to see here.

Of note…two cases in California…Orland and Marysville…not that far away from each other. Both reporting for over 100 years. The only diff is one remains (Orland) in the field…and one has been built around. Go to http://www.surfacestations.org/ and look towards the bottom of the page for the pics of each site…then go to links below to see enlarged temp graphs.

Orland – http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... emId=31243
Marysville – http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main ... emId=57529


Now get this…


Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

Only 10% (class 1&2) of the surveys stations aren’t tainted in some way. 22% are getting a 1-2C error. 61% of the stations are receiving an error of at least 2C-4.9C and 8% are getting a 5C or higher error. By error...this means they are being HEATED because of close proximity to some heat island source...parking lot...concrete...roof...vents...etc.

Urbanization...as I have said...is a BIG reason MEASURED global temps have increased. There are a lot more artificial heating surfaces around these observing sites than there were 50 years ago...or even 30 years ago. Combine that with the PDO and a grand solar max? There's your warming. Even those of you who subscribe to CO2 induced AGW have to be honest and say these are factors...and that those who are pushing CO2 AGW have a bigger agenda and and purposefully disregarding any and all other factors that (like those I listed above) have influenced temps.

I will give an example of what I mean (and what I think is happening...this isn't scientific...just meant to be an example). If the global temps have risen by 1C...and .2C can be explained by the heat island effect...and .4 can be explained by the PDO...and .2 can be explained by the grand solar max...and .2 can be explained by C02...why is it that the IPCC contributes the entire 1C rise to CO2 and doesn't even look at any other contributing factors?

And if it is a .2C factor...what happens when you take away the GSM and make it a GSmin and make that a -.2...and you make the -PDO a -.4? Don't you then do your theory more harm than good because you look like an idiot when your models (based soley on CO2) and predictions are proved entirely wrong?

Jus' sayin'

It could be we are cooling and we don’t even know it…

great info here AFM.
Have you seen anything else re: the e-mails, etc. that are blatantly showing manipulation? I am trying to spread the word and need all the ammo I can get.
And to those that do believe in gw, please understand that I fully believe we must all do our part to help the earth and I do, but have remained unconvinced this is not just cyclical.

[Air Force Met]

great info here AFM.
Have you seen anything else re: the e-mails, etc. that are blatantly showing manipulation? I am trying to spread the word and need all the ammo I can get.
And to those that do believe in gw, please understand that I fully believe we must all do our part to help the earth and I do, but have remained unconvinced this is not just cyclical.

There are some emails regarding the FOI requests...especially regarding the AR4. Apparently...the real stuff is in the actual data that was released...not just the emails. I've downloaded it but I haven't gone through it and it will take some time. I know there will be a world of people going through it so I am going to let them do the work.

Here is something else I pulled off another site...but its an editorial: "...tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them,land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years."

The details are in the data. All of the tree ring data they have been touting is apparently wrong and manipulated...and it all got released. However...its in a format that I am unfamiliar with. Like I said...I will wait for the "idiots," as they call them, to go through it all and see what they find.

Bottom line is they were peer-reviewing their own work...and not allowing anyone with a dissenting opinion to contribute to the peer review process. They were also not allowing anyone to look at the data...or the models. They were guarding their work like it was the KFC secret formula. In science...THAT cannot be.

[artist]

great info here AFM.
Have you seen anything else re: the e-mails, etc. that are blatantly showing manipulation? I am trying to spread the word and need all the ammo I can get.
And to those that do believe in gw, please understand that I fully believe we must all do our part to help the earth and I do, but have remained unconvinced this is not just cyclical.

There are some emails regarding the FOI requests...especially regarding the AR4. Apparently...the real stuff is in the actual data that was released...not just the emails. I've downloaded it but I haven't gone through it and it will take some time. I know there will be a world of people going through it so I am going to let them do the work.

Here is something else I pulled off another site...but its an editorial: "...tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them,land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years."

The details are in the data. All of the tree ring data they have been touting is apparently wrong and manipulated...and it all got released. However...its in a format that I am unfamiliar with. Like I said...I will wait for the "idiots," as they call them, to go through it all and see what they find.

Bottom line is they were peer-reviewing their own work...and not allowing anyone with a dissenting opinion to contribute to the peer review process. They were also not allowing anyone to look at the data...or the models. They were guarding their work like it was the KFC secret formula. In science...THAT cannot be.

Thanks AFM. Since I am a dummy when it comes to reading this stuff I will wait for you to report back when you find something if you don't mind. So if you see where someone has found something damaging will you let me know? TIA!

[Air Force Met]

Thanks AFM. Since I am a dummy when it comes to reading this stuff I will wait for you to report back when you find something if you don't mind. So if you see where someone has found something damaging will you let me know? TIA!

They've already found damaging stuff. Read the first page of this thread where i posted some of the emails. Failure to comply with FOI requests and to conspire to avoid FOI requests is a crime.

IMHO...it casts ALL there work into doubt...of course...it was already in doubt because there are so many NATURAL things that cause GW...yet they want to only attempt to point out a theory on CO2 to prove AGW....disregarding the ice core records to the contrary.

[MGC]

I listened to Rush Limbaugh today and a large segment of his show was devoted to this story. Limbaugh was giddy over the news. Do you really expect the media in America to make a big deal of this, why it would fly in the face of brainwashing of the gullable, that we humans are causing the end of the world. Gee, I wonder if Al Gore will give back his Nobel? Perhaps cap and trade will go away too?.......MGC

[Extremeweatherguy]

CNN.com is picking up on the story now in their TECH secion...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hack ... index.html

[artist]

Thanks AFM. Since I am a dummy when it comes to reading this stuff I will wait for you to report back when you find something if you don't mind. So if you see where someone has found something damaging will you let me know? TIA!

They've already found damaging stuff. Read the first page of this thread where i posted some of the emails. Failure to comply with FOI requests and to conspire to avoid FOI requests is a crime.

IMHO...it casts ALL there work into doubt...of course...it was already in doubt because there are so many NATURAL things that cause GW...yet they want to only attempt to point out a theory on CO2 to prove AGW....disregarding the ice core records to the contrary.

according to another forum I post on, they say this is not enough. They wouldn't see it if it hit them in the face! lol I am gonna try to post the code one again and see if that helps them in any way.

[MGC]

Naturally CNN is reporting that the e-mails have been taken out of context and that the hacker was cherry picking. What do you expect from CNN, as they are one of the cheer leaders of AGW......MGC

[Air Force Met]

Naturally CNN is reporting that the e-mails have been taken out of context and that the hacker was cherry picking. What do you expect from CNN, as they are one of the cheer leaders of AGW......MGC

When they say this: "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Not sure what kind of context you can put it in to massage it enough to make it right. And here's the reason:

For YEARS...the AGW crowd has pushed a direct correlation b/w CO2 levels and temps (down our throats). When the temps stopped increasing in proportion with the CO2...they were at a loss to exaplain why because they had already come to a pre-conceived conclusion on the matter: direct correlation. When it didn't happen...they had to revise...because the models are WRONG (just like the predictions on the resumption of sunspot activity have been wrong for the last 3 years). BUT they still won't even consider the possibility of nature causes or cycles.

For instance...big news yesterday about antarctic icebergs. GW!!!! Most ice headed north towards NZ since 1931. WELL geniuses...what happened in 1931? So...its not unprecedented. AND....the antarctic ice anamoly was 1 million sq km ABOVE the 30 yr mean at times this winter. Sometimes when you add too much ice...it breaks off. Where was global warming in a 1 million sq km ABOVE AVERAGE anomoly? But NOW...icebergs headed towards NZ is GW...even though it happened before as recently as 1931 (and in geological time...thats a blink). Give me a break. As the Monday Night Football crew says: "C'mon Man!"

And even now...they say they are "90% certain GW is man-made"....although they speak as if it is 100%. When you squash dissenters...keep them out of peer review and slander them...and cheer at their deaths...you better be 100% sure...not 90%. And might I remind everyone that even in science 100% certainties can still be wrong. A quick review of physics and astronomical history and theory bears that out.

[Sanibel]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

I think the fact that this thread is popular - yet those same other threads still exist and are still unanswered says all you need to know. That, to me, is more scandalous than anything the anti movement can contrive.


if you look at the other threads they went "100%" unanswered.

[jasons2k]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

I think the fact that this thread is popular - yet those same other threads still exist and are still unanswered says all you need to know. That, to me, is more scandalous than anything the anti movement can contrive.

if you look at the other threads they went "100%" unanswered.

I would hardly cite who has replied to a thread(s) on Storm2k.org, or any forum for that matter, as any kind of evidence as to whether or not man is a significant contributor to global warming or not.

And FWIW, there has not been a single post by some of S2k's most fervent AGW proponents here either.

I'm sorry, but such emails found out of CRU written by so-called respected scientists in the field is far more "scandalous" and "contrived" than a tally of replies to some internet forum threads.

[Air Force Met]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

I think the fact that this thread is popular - yet those same other threads still exist and are still unanswered says all you need to know. That, to me, is more scandalous than anything the anti movement can contrive.


if you look at the other threads they went "100%" unanswered.

Oh yeah...that's the best example /sarc.

Your "information" has been pushed by people with an agenda. Personally...I usually stay away from AGW threads on S2K because frankly...AGW people are highly illogical in my opinion. It is HIGHLY illogical to dismiss other causes...as I have outlined...over and over again (in the rare times I have come to these AGW threads). The problem with AGW is the agenda and dismissal of the natural cycle. The problem is the AGW politicians say there is a "consensus" which is an out and out LIE because even THEY will admit there is a 10% chance they are WRONG. THAT figure is from Jones himself. So...if you ADMIT there is a 10% chance you are wrong...it is highly unprofessional to cut people out of peer review...ridicule them...cheer at their deaths...and AVOID FOI requests (DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?).

So...pardon me if I do not trust the "information" AGW people put up because frankly...it has a hard time being independently verified because they avoid the FOI requests to see the raw data and the model parameters.

Now...as far as "best examples" and unanswered replies"...consider that we are talking about warming of 1C...and that AGW people won't address the warming that has occurred in the data due to heat island urbanization or the fact Mars...Triton and Pluto have also seen warming (GW...not AGW since the A is notoriously missing in these places). Consider AGW won't discuss the FACT that 91%+ of the stations in the US are contaminated by warming due to urbanization...22% are getting a 1-2C error. 61% of the stations are receiving an error of at least 2C-4.9C and 8% are getting a 5C or higher error.

91% are getting 1C or more HEAT that is NOT CO2. The problem is worse in China. That data is getting input into the GW data. You gonna sit here and tell me this has no influence? That its Co2 and contaminated data? The AGW climate researchers will. They will (publicly) say the rise is totally CO2. Now...in private they will discuss heat island...as the emails prove. Unless you can come to the table HONESTLY with me...don't come at all...hence the reason I won't discuss it with some here. I am not going to argue with someone who has doesn't have the common sense to even understand the heat island effect.

Throw into the mix the grand solar max...which solar scientists tell us we were in and are now coming out of. All one has to do is to 1) THINK logically about the sun and its influence on us. Without it...we would be 2.728 degrees above absolute zero. We we sat 900K miles closer to the sun...we would bake...and 900K miles farther...we would freeze. 93 million miles...not much room for error. The sun is the reason we are the temp we are. So...it is logical to assume that ANY deviation in it will impact the temps. 2) All we have to do to understand pt #1 is to look at the past...and you don't even have to go that far back...200-500 years when the sun got quiet...we got cold. When it got active again...we warmed. The warming and the coming out of the LIA just happen to coincide with industrialization.

I want to grab AGW nazi's sometime and ask them just what do they expect to happen when you come out of a LIA.

Oh...and to stop you there...the warming at this rate is NOT unprecedented. There are points in the geological record that have seen 10C rises in 5 years. 4C rises in 100 years. Rises in sea levels of 47 feet in 200 years...only to see it fall again over the next 200 years. The "A" was missing then too.

Top it all off with a PDO...which is the reason for the increase in hurricanes...NOT AGW. But...no matter how much you show the past...you can't get these "scientists" to concede that a Katrina could have happened 300 years ago if the population of NOLA was the same....throw in some sinking land due to the re-routing of the Mississippi and some crappy levees. No...it has to be AGW.

And you want to know why we're ticked? All I know is I will live to see the day AGW people are laughed at on the street. As a meteorologist (and there are a LOT of us out there...matter of fact...I would say MOST of us)...I can honestly say that because I understand the data I look at every day. I understand the impact the heat island has had...especially on overnight lows. And I know that data is being assimilated.

Oh...and just because I feel this way does not mean I am not a conservationist. Matter of fact...I bet I am more GREEN than Al Gore (the hypocrites are really funny...he puts out more CO2 in one year than all of us do in our lifetimes). We grow most of our own food...we compost...recycle...conserve water by using a cistern for our garden. I feel this way because that is where science and logic have taken me...not my agenda.

[Air Force Met]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

I think the fact that this thread is popular - yet those same other threads still exist and are still unanswered says all you need to know. That, to me, is more scandalous than anything the anti movement can contrive.


if you look at the other threads they went "100%" unanswered.

Oh...and you want examples? How this for examples. The NYT ran with this as did the Minn star tribune. Both papers are known for there left of center positions...and left of center ideals concerning AGW. Now...the original articles are gone. You get a 402 error (410/402...whatever it is when the link is no longer working). They've been pulled from their server.

In their place during the last couple of days have been a FLURRY of articles about AGW causing this and AGW causing that. Icebergs...Cape Cod fish being pushed into deeper water...WARING Africans killing each other more because of AGW...

Its been a hoot. Common sense had left the building. Gee..couldn't be dictators...tribal disputes and WAY overpopulation leading to all those deaths and hostilities in Africa...has to be AGW. Africa never had problems before AGW.

And you really want to know why we don't trust these people?

[brunota2003]

For those who do not know, when he says LIA, he is referring to the Little Ice Age.


"The Little Ice Age was a time of cooler climate in most parts of the world. Although there is some disagreement about exactly when the Little Ice Age started, records suggest that temperatures began cooling around 1250 A.D. The coldest time was during the 16th and 17th Centuries. By 1850 the climate began to warm."
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... e_age.html
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Ch ... e_Age.html

In these images, note the Medieval Warm Period proceeding the LIA...what was the cause then? Were they releasing CO2 then, as well? I think not.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/ ... group4.htm

[Stormavoider]

I think the best example are the unanswered replies to threads on this board that suggested Global Warming was a hoax but when the thread was pursued and replies showed information that wasn't liked by the original posters the replies went unanswered.

I think the fact that this thread is popular - yet those same other threads still exist and are still unanswered says all you need to know. That, to me, is more scandalous than anything the anti movement can contrive.


if you look at the other threads they went "100%" unanswered.

I and likely many skeptics will just drop it for fear of being banned for "getting political." It is almost impossible to counter AGW claims without "getting political" because the AGW movement IS political and NOT science.