Climategate 2.0

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Pan Narrans

Yes.

No.


But try again soon, I can use a good laugh.

Then how did NASA lower the temperature in the 30's after the year 2000? You are not claiming a time machine was used to remeasure the temperature more accurately, are you?

[Clutch Munny]

This is very relevant to the point I was making just last week when the external thermometer on the sunny side of the house said it was 32C, and I said holy shit it's 32C! but then the next day it said 31C in the sun but we put another one in the shade and it said 27C so I said you know yesterday? it probably wasn't quite 32C ambient after all and then all the kids were like holy fuckin shit dad do you have a TIME MACHINE?!!!

[Jerome]

Now you are implying a cache of previously 'lost' data suddenly found!

How did NASA lower the temperature in the 30's after the year 2000?

[Clutch Munny]

yes thats what happened when i found out what the temperature in the shade was on Wednesday it was actually a TROVE OF PREVIOUSLY "LOST" DATA from Tuesday which is why TIME MACHINE!

[Pan Narrans]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Then how did NASA lower the temperature in the 30's after the year 2000?

1. Did they? Show it.

2. Take special care to show what temperatures are reported. Are they monthly means, annual means, or something else entirely? What region do they represent: global mean temperature, average over the continental USA, zonal average, or what?

3. You might want to read up on meteorological reanalysis.

You are not claiming a time machine was used to remeasure the temperature more accurately, are you?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Pan Narrans

1. Did they? Show it.

And when I do, what will be your response? Lets get it on record.

[Jerome]

Ohh, I already see your response, the past real data needs to be manipulated to fit the models!!

The only 'science' in which models/predictions/hypothesis can change real actual collected observed data.

[Ensign Steve]

Or you could actually show it.

[Pan Narrans]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Ohh, I already see your response, the past real data needs to be manipulated to fit the models!!

The only 'science' in which models/predictions/hypothesis can change real actual collected observed data.

Almost.

The real actual data is generally not representative for the real actual information that's useful for real actual climate study. Therefore the real actual data is used in conjunction with real actual models to simulate a real actual self-consistent state of the atmosphere so that real actual useful parameters can be derived. Really, actually.

[Angakuk]

[Pan Narrans]

[Jerome]

Just a reminder that is has been an unusually cool summer, but I bet if next summer is unusually hot it will be presented as evidence of AGW.

[ceptimus]

Typical USA-centric comment from you. It's been an unusually hot summer here in the UK.

Even the climate scientists you are always trying to put down admit there is such a thing as 'weather'.

[The Man]

Climate Change Denying Scientist Is Bought and Paid For, Surprise!

...documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that his research was directly paid for by industry sources, to the tune of over $1.2 million. Worse, he’s published at least 11 papers that failed to disclose those payments, a serious no-no in scientific ethics.

...So hey, it turns out that Indiana congressmoron Larry Bucshon was right: scientists are getting rich off doing research on climate. It’s just that the ones getting rich are the ones saying global warming is fake.

Soon’s “research,” which claimed that variations in how much energy the sun puts out explain climate change on Earth, have already been dismissed by most scientists, who note that Soon is not a climatologist (his degree is in aerospace engineering) and that his papers are deeply flawed. But because he’s associated with a reputable institution — which has long distanced itself from his claims — he looked just legitimate enough that many climate deniers, most notably Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, have paraded him as one of the Top Experts who doesn’t buy into the scientific consensus on global warming.

Sen. Inhofe was very conveniently traveling and unavailable for comment on the Times article. Imagine that.

...Go read the whole New York Times piece — it’s pretty incredible stuff, about a pretty un-credible “scientist.” And while you’re at it, go re-watch the episode of Cosmos that recounts how oil companies used paid “experts” to downplay evidence of the deadly effects of leaded gasoline. Gosh, who’d have dreamed the industry would do the same with climate science?

[The Man]

James Inhofe claims that there's no such thing as global warming because he has a snowball. In related news, the soup I just ate proves there's no such thing as world hunger.

[The Man]

A new study has come out providing further empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect, being, apparently, the first to directly observe the process of carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere. Of course, it goes without saying that this won't convince Jerome or anyone else like him, because global warming is a conspiracy.

In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory used eleven years of measurements from specialized instruments at sites in Alaska and Oklahoma to analyze the source of energy fluctuations, confirming that it’s carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels that’s causing warming — and not water vapor, changes in the sun or someone tampering with the data to make it look like global warming is worse than it is, as some have claimed.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” lead author Daniel Feldman explained in a statement.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

[chunksmediocrites]

I had dinner with my parents last night, and my mother apparently thought she was making a point by asking questions suggesting her skepticism:
Since the historical record has shown warming and cooling trends, then how can science make any determination as to what is occurring now, or the source of the change?
If scientists could actually change the temperature of the world, what temperature would they change it to, i.e. who are scientists to say what the ideal temperature is?
If the temperature increases, doesn't that also mean areas that couldn't grow food before because they were too cold now can grow food?
If global warming is occurring, then has the overall global temperature increased?

We were there for my mom's birthday, and she's 79; and I did my best to gently respond without pushing it too hard, and we were all glad to change the subject afterwards; oh, mom.

Is there someone out there in the denial camps making those arguments?

[Ari]

The food question is a good one.
The issue is that certain food grows in certain climates, climate change will push growth of food to different areas, pushing them out of areas that are well prepped for it. There's some worry that certain wine regions might go dry as they get too hot to produce good wine grapes.

[chunksmediocrites]

My response on the food question was: increased temperature means pressure on coastal areas and increased salination risks for aquifers. Rising sea level means the most highly populated areas get forced inwards, putting crop land at risk; and that more temperate climates for some areas means little if the areas they speak of have little or no topsoil, or are ecosystems already filled- acidic soil pine forests on rocky, broken ground make lousy farmland.

Certainly Canada could have a longer growing season- assuming that the weather changes- changes in ocean currents, winds, predominant weather, the ferocity of storms- didn't result in higher aridity or so much rain and storm that you couldn't reliably grow many foods.

In the same way, higher altitudes with more temperate weather doesn't translate into farming zones- vertical rock still isn't a viable food region.

I'm going to look around in the right wing blogosphere and see if I can find out whose line she's picking up.

[Watser?]

A lot of the soil that will 'become available for agriculture' are Siberian tundras of permafrost. Apparently they trap a lot of methane, so if they thaw global warming will increase. And I doubt it will be useful for agriculture any time soon.

[Watser?]

In fact, this is what happens there.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Watser?

In fact, scientists are freaked out is what happens there.

Scientists are only "freaked out" if certain sections of the world community appear incapable of understanding any position in between "freaked out" and "no problem at all, no sirree, just carry on as you were".

[mickthinks]

There are four questions that hang over the controversy about global warming;

1. Is it really happening?
2. Is human activity causing it?
3. Is it so bad?
4. Can it be avoided?

Despite the doubts often expressed in the general uninformed (or rather, misinformed) population, 1. is a settled matter of scientific fact, and has been for some decades, I think. The Earth's globe is warming.

The current denialist programme accepts that global warming is happening, but maintains that it is a natural process that we have nothing to do with. In short, it is Global Warming but it isn't Anthropogenic.

It is this doubt about the second question that sustains the enduring popular doubt about the first question. And the third question adds to the problem that the public have in understanding the issue. Why should I try to get myself better informed if it doesn't matter anyway? In fact, warming sounds good, doesn't it?

Thus the public are hard to rouse because there are so many opportunities for doubt on the issue. Settling climate doubts is a game of Climate-Sceptic-Whac-A-Mole.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking away all hope on question 4 ...

This article, Climate change key in Syrian conflict – and it will trigger more war in future | The Independent, addresses the tricky question 3.

Yes, folks, Anthropogenic Global Warming is bad. In fact, let's call it evil.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

If scientists could actually change the temperature of the world, what temperature would they change it to, i.e. who are scientists to say what the ideal temperature is?

I see this one frequently. It feeds into the "It isn't bad" type response.

I usually respond that there are a handful of food crops that we've developed during the temperatures dominant during this interglacial, and all 7 billion of us need to eat them. This is met with a flurry of other nonsense.

We don't know what warming temps will do to pests and crop diseases. My wild guess, warmer air = more humidity = more fungal disease, more severe weather leads to physical crop damage where the grain head is beaten to the ground (it is lost once that happens), and pests will surely migrate with warmer temps. Also, you can't just carry the same crop farther north or south and expect it to yield the same. Day length, growing days per season and obliquity of sunlight all influence crop yield, as do temperature and available moisture, especially at the time the grain sets. You won't be able to squeeze in a second summer crop much farther north. Farther south is likely to become too hot and dry, generally. A lot will depend on the specific location in question, results will be far from uniform.

I imagine summer-swampy tundra will eventually begin to dry out (a plus) as perma frost melts out and slooowly evaporates out, but I'm not really sure about that?

There is also the CO2 is a fertilizer argument. While strictly true, it is also incomplete. You can't just boost CO2 and expect better yield. You also need to boost water and other nutrients.

My main concerns are for agriculture and ecology. I could really do without the loss of species, for future generations. Not a big fan of malnutrition or starvation either, though. I don't really give a crap if we have to move our coastal real estate. Maybe it will open some new wetlands.

Bloviation complete, for now.

[Watser?]

It's all very well for countries that have other real estate than coastal real estate...