Natrag   Forum.hr > Društvo > Politika > Svijet

Svijet Zbivanja u svijetu

Odgovor
 
Tematski alati Opcije prikaza
Old 24.11.2011., 22:34   #1
Climategate - drugi dio

Kao prije par godina, taman prije konferencije o klimi u Durbanu, pojavljuje se neko s mailovima znanstvenika koji "opovrgavaju" klimatske promjene.

Meni sam tajming jasno govori da se radi o nekome tko ne vjeruje u to, ali jesu li ti mailovi zaista iskoristivi kao dokazi?

Evo mailova (na engleskom je):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...limategate-ii/

Evo i malo neutralnijeg posta na Economistu u kojem znanstvenici tvrde da su im rijeci izvucene iz konteksta:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babba...change-e-mails
Primitive is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 13:25   #2
Climategate je sranje na koje drkaju teoritičari zavjere:

Takozvani “hide the decline” “trik” koji se spominje u “naj” “inkriminirajućem” e-mailu: radi se o korekciji s godovima stabala (“tree ring divergence”).

“These emails are blissfully being spun by the climate contrarians as proof of some type of worldwide conspiracy by scientists to fake the climate change crisis.

Right.

It's more likely proof that climate deniers are the crazed conspiracy theorists we always thought they were.

Out of thousands and thousands of emails that were hacked, the climate change denying conspiracy theorists have only managed to identify a few that they consider to be incriminating.

They are referring to the Michael Mann hockey stick study from ten years ago that has been the subject of attacks by climate skeptic bloggers for many years now. In fact, it got so bad that the US National Academy of Science was called in by the US Senate to look further into the validity of the Mann study.
Not to mention that the study is almost a decade old and thousands of studies have followed since, unfortunately for climate conspirists the NAS exonerated the Mann study finding that:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."

And more importantly, and this is related directly to these leaked emails that are supposed proof of some massive conspiracy, the NAS concluded that:

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."

In layman terms this means that the Mann hockey stick study is only one of many studies and many lines of evidence that shows that the climate is warming. Even further, they point out that the Mann Hockey Stick isn't even a primary evidence source.

. . .

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate. I don’t think this is remotely true, but let’s assume it.

Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following:

1. The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.

2. The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the "hockey stick") are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.

Neither one of these is true. Moreover, physics doesn't care about hacked emails and conspiracy theories. The impacts of catastrophic climate change continue to rear their ugly head:

A few e-mails of out thousands sent by a few scientists out of thousands taken out of context by global warming deniers does not come within a light year of collapsing all of the scientific research, data, and current events that point to a warming planet caused by greenhouse gas emissions. It’s why record highs of outnumbered record lows by an ever increasing ratio, which reached 2:1 in the last decade. It’s why NASA recently reported the hottest June to October on record. It’s why every each decade is considerably hotter than the last, and why ocean surface temperatures are the warmest on record. It’s why declassified US spy satellites show the impact of warming on our ice caps, and East Antarctica is losing ice mass. Increased wildfires and pine bark beetles moving North. Australia being pushed to the breaking point by drought. Incidentally, 2009 is shaping up to be the 5th warmest year on record. That’s all happening now.”

"We should keep in mind that our understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature. The scientific community is united in calling on U.S. policymakers to recognize that emissions of heat-trapping gases must be dramatically reduced if we are to avoid the worst consequences of human-induced climate change.”

“Wonder what would be uncovered if thousands of emails from the Conservative Enterprise Institute or Exxon Mobile were released in a similar manner. Think for a millisecond about how juicy the news might be if someone hacked the CEI computer, finding a way to track funding and listening in on the conversations that have occurred between Ebells and his collaborators at Exxon, Ford and the Bush Whitehouse.”

“More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”

“I don't know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger. And yet that's literally what some of these bloggers are saying!”



Of course, none of this is at all relevant to the climate issue today. It’s a nasty, ugly sideshow. The science of climate change doesn’t stand or fall based upon what a few scientists said in emails they always thought would remain private.
__________________
o_O
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 14:22   #3
"Klimatska promjena" je politička borba ljevice protiv USA gospodarske dominacije.

Isti ti, ne žele da se pritišće Kina niti Indija "jer se oni imaju pravo razvijati",nego samo SAD
__________________
Everybody Makes Fun Of The Redneck-Until the Zombie Apocalipse!
Kyle Reese is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 16:14   #4
Quote:
Kyle Reese kaže: Pogledaj post
"Klimatska promjena" je politička borba ljevice protiv USA gospodarske dominacije.

Isti ti, ne žele da se pritišće Kina niti Indija "jer se oni imaju pravo razvijati",nego samo SAD
Politika mitigacije iliti smanjenja stakleničkih plinova je teži promašaj, no to ne znači da su ovi climategate paranoici u pravu
__________________
o_O
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 20:03   #5
Quote:
<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
Dakle biraju periode koje analiziraju da pokazu zatopljenje. Kakav drugi kontekst inteligentna osoba moze naci u gornjem citatu??
__________________
Meh
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 20:07   #6
Quote:
<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
Znanstvenici sakrivaju Medieval Warm Period. Drugi moguci kontekst je?
__________________
Meh
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 20:19   #7
Quote:
<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
Kontekst?
__________________
Meh
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 21:38   #8
Climategate je toliko moćna zavjera da je od preko 3000 hakiranih dokumenata, svega nekoliko imalo 'inkrimirajući' sadržaj. Mislim, ako znanstvenici kreiraju nekakvu ueberzavjeru, they suck at it

Ono što je bilo 'uzbuđujuće' u tih nekoliko mailova su izrazi poput 'hide the decline' i Mannov hockey-stick graf.

Mannov hockey-stick graf doista est 'kontroverzan' ali o tome se raspravlja od samog početka. A što se tiče 'trick' i 'hide the decline':

Phil Jones, who has stepped down temporarily as CRU director, has said publicly that he never meant to imply that he or Mann had used deception. By "trick," he said he meant only a technique for highlighting data on a graph.

The trick, said Mann, who faces a Penn State inquiry, was simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together - clearly indicating which was which. "There's nothing hidden or inappropriate," he said. Mann said his method of combining proxy data has withstood numerous statistical tests - lining up neatly with thermometer readings during the 150 years where they overlap.

Critics also pointed to the phrase "hide the decline" in an e-mail written by Jones. That, said Mann, referred not to a decline in measured temperatures but to a decline reflected in a certain kind of tree-ring measurement that relies on wood density.


Šta se tiče hockey-sticka čak i oni koji ne vjeruju u njegovu točnost, slažu se da to ne znači da ne postoji trend zagrijavanja:

North worked with three statisticians and several high-ranking climate experts, picking through Mann's arguments and data. He said the panel came away with a few quibbles over Mann's methods and when they re-did it, the graph didn't have as dramatic an upward slant as the original hockey stick.

But overall, "we thought that qualitatively the paper got it right. The last 30 years were warmer than any 30-year period in the last 600 years and plausibly the last 1,000 years."



@Gekko:

Naravno da s uzima referentna točka da bi se pokazao neki trend. Jednako kao što denialisti vole uzeti 1998-mu kao referentnu jer je nakon toga slijedolo kao zahlađenje. A kao referentna točka je namjerno uzeta 1998ma zbog El Ninha

A ovo 'sakrivanje' MWP-a se vjerovatno odnosi na izbacivanje iz grafa ili nešto slično (treba više jedne rečenice9 da bi se vidio kontekst). Mislim, od koga će sakriti MWP? Za njega zna i moja baba.


Mann je napravio glupost da bi svoj graf prikazao ljepišim. Ali čak i ljudi koji otvoreno kritiziraju njegov potez (recimo Prof. Muller s Berkleya) vjeruju da postoji trend zagrijavanja bez obzira na Mannove 'igrarije'.

Da sumiram:

Globalno zatopljenje - ne vjerujem da su ga jljudi izazvali. Možda imaju neki minorni utjecaj da ga malo 'pojačaju'
Klimatski modeliza budučnost - nepouzdani
Kyoto protokol - promašaj
Climategate - masturbacijsko štivo za zavjeraše, prenapuhano od raznoraznih novinarčića
__________________
o_O

Zadnje uređivanje Cahit : 25.11.2011. at 21:57.
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 22:02   #9
Cahit,

Kao prvo upotreba termina 'denialists' je intelektulno nepostena sugestija i sugerira da su skeptici (daleko primjereniji termin) in denial of reality. Dakako realnost je naturena i isfrizirana verzija bazirana na modellima prilicno slicnim matematickim modelima koji su 1998-me krahirali LTCM hedhe fond.

Kao drugo glede reference, prilicno je glupo uzimati neku tocku iz modenije povijesti. Vise o tome imas ovdje:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaey...feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfMB1...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbASZ...feature=relmfu
__________________
Meh

Zadnje uređivanje Gordon Gekko : 25.11.2011. at 22:14.
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 22:27   #10
Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post

Globalno zatopljenje - ne vjerujem da su ga jljudi izazvali. Možda imaju neki minorni utjecaj da ga malo 'pojačaju'
Klimatski modeliza budučnost - nepouzdani
Kyoto protokol - promašaj
Climategate - masturbacijsko štivo za zavjeraše, prenapuhano od raznoraznih novinarčića
Tako je.
Tu je sve rečeno.
felixx is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 22:34   #11
[QUOTE=Gordon Gekko;36894223]
Quote:
Kao prvo upotreba termina 'denialists' je intelektulno nepostena sugestija i sugerira da su skeptici (daleko primjereniji termin) in denial of reality.
Primljeno

Quote:
Kao drugo glede reference, prilicno je glupo uzimati neku tocku iz modenije povijesti. Vise o tome imas ovdje:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaey...feature=fvwrel
Svaka mu je na mjestu, pogotovo ona o Kyotu 'makes us feel good'

ALi primjeti da Prof. Carter govori o nekim 'uncertainties' vezano za klimatske promjene, a ne o megazavjeri koju ljudi vole vidit, recimo u climategatu na temelju par mailova od strane tipa koji si je htio uljepšati graf.

Po meni su jedini referentni satelitski podaci, a oni počinju u 70-tima. Pokazuju trend zatopljenja, ali minorni, a premali je to broj godina za neke čvršće zaključke. Jednako tako je glupo očekivati nekakve long-term modele na račun tih podataka.

Priča oko globalnog zatopljenja je previše ispolitizirana, a za to znanstvenici nisu glavni krivci
__________________
o_O
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 22:39   #12
Lijepo je izjavio mladi Rotschild da je ovo s klimom još jedan način ubiranja love.
Omaha is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 25.11.2011., 23:03   #13
Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post
Po meni su jedini referentni satelitski podaci, a oni počinju u 70-tima. Pokazuju trend zatopljenja, ali minorni, a premali je to broj godina za neke čvršće zaključke. Jednako tako je glupo očekivati nekakve long-term modele na račun tih podataka.
Podaci se mogu aproximirati iz leda i sedimenata. Za promatranje temperature i koncentracije CO2 kroz tisucljeca alati koje imamo su sasvim dovoljni.


Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post
Priča oko globalnog zatopljenja je previše ispolitizirana, a za to znanstvenici nisu glavni krivci
Nisu glavni, ali velika vecina znanstvenika su liberalno nastrojeni stoga nije cudno da su prihvatili globalno zagrijavanje ili klimatske promijene kao vazan pet projekt. Mislim da je namjera sasvim ocita iz objavljenih mailova.
__________________
Meh
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 26.11.2011., 10:06   #14
Quote:
Gordon Gekko kaže: Pogledaj post
Podaci se mogu aproximirati iz leda i sedimenata. Za promatranje temperature i koncentracije CO2 kroz tisucljeca alati koje imamo su sasvim dovoljni.
Da, ali za sigurnije pokazivanje trenda temperature je potrebno mjeriti temperature istom metodom. U tome i je suština problema Mannovog grafa, u kojem za dio grafa koristi tree-ring data, a za zadnji koristi stvarna mjerenja. Onda dobivamo famozni hockey-stick.

Inače (ovo) globalno zatopljenje navodno počinje sa industrijalizacijom u 19.st. Za to nam nisu potrebne aproksimacije iz leda i sedimenata
__________________
o_O
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 26.11.2011., 10:45   #15
Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post
Da, ali za sigurnije pokazivanje trenda temperature je potrebno mjeriti temperature istom metodom. U tome i je suština problema Mannovog grafa, u kojem za dio grafa koristi tree-ring data, a za zadnji koristi stvarna mjerenja. Onda dobivamo famozni hockey-stick.
Hockey-stick je bila cista manipulacija. To je danas jasno.

Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post
Inače (ovo) globalno zatopljenje navodno počinje sa industrijalizacijom u 19.st. Za to nam nisu potrebne aproksimacije iz leda i sedimenata
Itekako je potrebno da se uvidi korelacija CO2 / temperature u proslosti i to je upravo ono sto grafovi pokazuju da korelacije kroz proslost nema. CO2 i temperatura idu gore dole bez veze.
__________________
Meh
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 26.11.2011., 22:06   #16
Quote:
Gordon Gekko kaže: Pogledaj post
Hockey-stick je bila cista manipulacija. To je danas jasno
Da, samo o tome se raspravljalo i puno prije 'Climategatea'

In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper, and there was continued debate on these issues. Hans von Storch regards that paper as of little consequence, and believes his paper of 2004 to be the first significant criticism



Quote:
Itekako je potrebno da se uvidi korelacija CO2 / temperature u proslosti i to je upravo ono sto grafovi pokazuju da korelacije kroz proslost nema. CO2 i temperatura idu gore dole bez veze.


http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/hist...ent-time-scale.

Razlika je jedino u tome što je povišena temperatura bila uzrok, a CO2 posljedica - tada nije bilo ljudi da ga trpaju u atmosferu pa nije ni za očekivati da je bio uzrok. Danas je rasprava da li je ovo PRVO zatopljenje gdje je CO2 uzrok ili je opcija 'između' - amplifikator
__________________
o_O
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 26.11.2011., 22:34   #17
Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post
Da, samo o tome se raspravljalo i puno prije 'Climategatea'

In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper, and there was continued debate on these issues. Hans von Storch regards that paper as of little consequence, and believes his paper of 2004 to be the first significant criticism







http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/hist...ent-time-scale.

Razlika je jedino u tome što je povišena temperatura bila uzrok, a CO2 posljedica - tada nije bilo ljudi da ga trpaju u atmosferu pa nije ni za očekivati da je bio uzrok. Danas je rasprava da li je ovo PRVO zatopljenje gdje je CO2 uzrok ili je opcija 'između' - amplifikator

Povisenje temperature je uvijek uzrok povecanoj koncentraciji CO2 i nema razloga da i danas nije tako. Koliko je meni poznato osnovni fizicki zakoni jos uvijek vaze.
__________________
"All models are wrong, some are useful." George E.P. Box

Nisam dosljedan. Kada se promjeni podatak na temelju kojega donosim zaključak, ja ga mjenjam.
glosa is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 26.11.2011., 22:59   #18
Quote:
glosa kaže: Pogledaj post
Povisenje temperature je uvijek uzrok povecanoj koncentraciji CO2 i nema razloga da i danas nije tako. Koliko je meni poznato osnovni fizicki zakoni jos uvijek vaze.
I ja mislim da je sunce bilo trigger, ali ne isključujem da bi CO2 (osim 'posljedice') mogao biti i amplifikator. Jer navodno u zadnje vrijeme CO2+ porast temperature i 11-godišnji ciklusi sunčeve aktivnosti se i ne prate baš nešto.

EDIT:

Odmičemo se od teme, jer pričamo o GW sa aspekta prirodnih zanaosti. A na Prirodnim Znanostima, SoN-u, Alternativi itd ima već i previše takvih tema. Mislim da je tema s razlogom stavljena na Politiku.

O Climategateu sam već rekao što mislim i citirao neke izvore. O ostalim političkim dimenzijama priče oko GW-a (recimo trgovanje emisijama , Climate refugees - slučaj Tuvalu i sl.) baš i ne znam puno, pa se povlačim

Pozdrav
__________________
o_O
Cahit is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 26.11.2011., 23:12   #19
Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post
Da, samo o tome se raspravljalo i puno prije 'Climategatea'

In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper, and there was continued debate on these issues. Hans von Storch regards that paper as of little consequence, and believes his paper of 2004 to be the first significant criticism
Da znam poznat je slucaj. Gospodin 'trick' Mann je odoljevao da u javnost da detalje svoga 'modela'. Kao ako da u javnost model onda ce trivijalizirati znanost ili tako nekako je rezonirao.


Quote:
Cahit kaže: Pogledaj post


http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/hist...ent-time-scale.

Razlika je jedino u tome što je povišena temperatura bila uzrok, a CO2 posljedica - tada nije bilo ljudi da ga trpaju u atmosferu pa nije ni za očekivati da je bio uzrok. Danas je rasprava da li je ovo PRVO zatopljenje gdje je CO2 uzrok ili je opcija 'između' - amplifikator
Kaj je od ljudi naguran CO2 posebno potentan pa je danas uzrocnik a prije je bio posljedicnik?? CO2 s viagrom. A ovo je posebno dobar graf. Jedan milimetar je kolko...... 5000 godina i opet da ga jebes maximumi, minimumi, usponi i padove se ne poklapaju. Fakat korelacija. I onda zooom na 50 godina fijuuuuuuu ode.
__________________
Meh
Gordon Gekko is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Old 14.12.2012., 16:34   #20
Zmajlović govorio na konferenciji zemalja potpisnica Protokola iz Kyota

evo nas godinu kasnije

Gotovo 200 država produljilo je danas primjenu UN-ova plana protiv globalnog zagrijavanja do 2020. Time je pokrenut Protokol iz Kyota II. i izbjegnuta je propast dvadesetogodišnjih napora Ujedinjenih naroda u smanjenju emisije plina s učinkom staklenika.

Zemlje koje su se obvezale ispuštaju tek 15 posto tog plina u svijetu, ali riječ je o jedinom postignutom sporazumu.
__________________
>>Vratio im se Ivo. Lopovi, lupeži, kriminalci, oni koji daju i primaju mito, neće više mirno spavati!<<
Melron is offline  
Odgovori s citatom
Odgovor


Tematski alati
Opcije prikaza

Kreni na podforum




Sva vremena su GMT +2. Trenutno vrijeme je: 23:06.