Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Kestrel]

I brought that up here and my posts vanished. Shucks, I can even prove it is happening, but what's the point? There is always moving of the goal posts, rationalizations or worse. Nobody here who believes in warming is the least bit skeptical of anything that makes it seem like there is more warming.

That's what you think the problem is? Not that with one fell swoop the NCDC just changed the entire climate history of the US?

And every bit of it was to make the present seem warmer, and the past colder?

That doesn't make you skeptical at all?

The paper I linked did a good job explaining the criteria used to purge the data of errors and adjust for changes in recording practices, movement of recording stations and other issues with the raw data.

I suggest reading it before deciding that the adjustments were all part of some conspiracy.

 

[aleCcowaN]

"I can prove [something] but, what's the point? ..."

"rationalizations"

more wishful thinking

 

[r-j]

The paper I linked did a good job explaining the criteria used to purge the data of errors and adjust for changes in recording practices, movement of recording stations and other issues with the raw data.

I suggest reading it before deciding that the adjustments were all part of some conspiracy.

I've never said it was a conspiracy. In fact, it's obviously not a conspiracy. That's why it's so easy to prove they did it. It's not like there is some secret group that got together and planned this.

 

[r-j]

And there is also the fact that they discuss it on the NCDC site, and even have a software tool to compare the versions, which shows exactly how much they cooled the past, or warmed the present.

Kind of hard to say it's secret when they openly show you the changes. On the NCDC site.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Kind of hard to say it's secret when they openly show you the changes. On the NCDC site.

They openly show the changes so scientists can review it. If you want to make a big deal about the changes, then attack the data and show why you think the data is wrong. Don't just attack the fact that the data was adjusted. Data gets adjusted all the time. It's important to show if the adjustment was a good one or not. Got any information about that?

 

[macdoc]

Consequences

Global warming will serve up more pea-soupers
16:14 23 June 2014 by Andy Coghlan

Stubborn urban smogs will become a common reality if the world keeps warming, with serious consequences for health.

Daniel Horton of Stanford University in California and his colleagues analysed how temperature has historically affected weather patterns that blow away stagnant air. They then projected how global warming would alter these patterns over the coming century.

The team focused on wind patterns at high and low altitudes, as these most strongly dictate periods of stagnation. Lighter winds indicate that the near-surface atmosphere is not being ventilated, meaning that any pollution in those regions lingers for longer before being blown away, says Horton.

Global warming will disrupt natural ventilation and the clearance of polluted air, the team predicts, boosting the number of days each year when air is stagnant. Some regions, including the western US and India, are projected to suffer an extra 40 stagnant days per year by the end of the century, says Horton.
Killer heatwave

Such stagnation prolongs exposure to pollutants that aggravate respiratory problems and heart disease, such as ozone and fine particulate matter.

more
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ll-serve-up-more-peasoupers.html#.U6h4RSRuH3w

 

[aleCcowaN]

By the way, it was published NOAA's NCDC State of the Climate report for last May.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest for this month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F).

This includes all previous records during Niño episodes like 1992's and 1997-98's.

Also

For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F), making it the record highest for May and tying with June 1998, October 2003, and July 2009 as the highest departure from average for any month on record.

It's interesting this tie, as June 1998's was after the worst Niño in at least 70 years, October 2003's during neutral ENSO conditions and October 2009's on the third month of a Niña episode. We are now in the most probable starting point of a Niño --last May, ONI was -0.2, so, on the negative side of neutral --, so a new step in the escalator is to be expected.

Interesting to correct those 0.74°C with all the fuzz of changed records and yada yada recently talked and have it "corrected". Would it even reach 0.73°C?

 

[macdoc]

Not even an El Nino....yet

Globe breaks May temperature record (Update)
1 hour ago by By Seth Borenstein

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday said May's average temperature on Earth of 59.93 degrees Fahrenheit (15.54 degrees Celsius) beat the old record set four years ago. In April, the globe tied the 2010 record for that month. Records go back to 1880.

May was especially hot in parts of Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Spain, South Korea and Australia, while the United States was not close to a record, just 1 degree warmer than the 20th century average.

Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb and other experts say there's a good chance global heat records will keep falling, especially next year because an El Nino weather event is brewing on top of man-made global warming. An El Nino is a warming of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that alters climate worldwide and usually spikes global temperatures.

Ocean temperatures in May also set a record for the month. But an El Nino isn't considered in effect till the warm water changes the air and that hasn't happened yet, NOAA said.

With the El Nino on top of higher temperatures from heat-trapping greenhouse gases, "we will see temperature records fall all over the world," wrote Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann in an email
May was 1.33 degrees (0.74 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 20th century world average.

The last month that was cooler than normal was February 1985, marking 351 hotter than average months in a row.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-global-temperature-all-time-high.html#jCp

and the warming continues

 

[Trakar]

There is a big difference between acknowledging that something was done for a valid and legitimate reason in the open with compelling supporting evidences in order to make the data more accurate and reliable and with the acknowledgement and support of the research community, and insinuating that some researchers are altering data to make it less accurate and to hide the truth for some ulterior motive. The former, is simply factual accounting of data correction that is relatively common throughout most fields of research involving large collections of data over long periods of time via a variety of sources, the latter is unsupported conspiracy mongering distortions of reality. The former is science and open for discussion, the latter is the promotion of unsupported conspiracy theories that are open for discussion and exploration in the conspiracy theory section of JREF.

 

[Arnold Martin]

mmmhh makes so much sense what you say, and you link to so convincing research.

and here iwas listening to institutions like NASA,ESA, MIT, Yale, MPI, ETHZ....
but some guy on the internet figured it all out.
and you didn't even have to use one of those climate models.

you are a genius. thanks for setting us straigth.

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer...ial&utm_campaign=docViewShareButton&tag=pz2FS

 

[Trakar]

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer...ial&utm_campaign=docViewShareButton&tag=pz2FS

I'm not sure why you post this, it does not support or affirm your original argument nor is it even strongly related to that assertion.

 

[Arnold Martin]

I'm not sure why you post this, it does not support or affirm your original argument nor is it even strongly related to that assertion.

No but it does contradict the warmist party line that food production will suffer

 

[CapelDodger]

By reading the comment sections in that telegraph's article one can confirm how rotten meat attracts flies. The Telegraph is just selling controversy, a product always in high demand.

The Telegraph's inner-circle really do believe this stuff. They're part of a peculiarly British self-perpetuating right-wing clique, and as we know denying AGW has become a totem for the political right. The same is true for the Mail and Express. Murdoch is something else, of course, but he's very much in touch with them. They, on the other hand, are completely out-of-touch with reality.

This clique picks up a contempt for science at school and it's reinforced from there on in. They love the Republican image of the US, not because it's a democracy - heaven forbid - but because it's a society which knows the importance of privilege. Of wealth. Of being connected. Having "juice", as the saying goes. Modern Brits are frankly surly in comparison.

 

[Kestrel]

There is a big difference between acknowledging that something was done for a valid and legitimate reason in the open with compelling supporting evidences in order to make the data more accurate and reliable and with the acknowledgement and support of the research community, and insinuating that some researchers are altering data to make it less accurate and to hide the truth for some ulterior motive. The former, is simply factual accounting of data correction that is relatively common throughout most fields of research involving large collections of data over long periods of time via a variety of sources, the latter is unsupported conspiracy mongering distortions of reality. The former is science and open for discussion, the latter is the promotion of unsupported conspiracy theories that are open for discussion and exploration in the conspiracy theory section of JREF.

Well stated.

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer...ial&utm_campaign=docViewShareButton&tag=pz2FS

generally
many regions
crops -not biomass-

Can wheat, sorghum, corn, soy and cotton reproduce by themselves? Let's say you leave thousands of acres for nature to take control, how much of these species are you going to find 25 years later?

Crops useful for humans have being developed during the last decades to get high yields, and that has been done in a context of rising CO2.

What do they do to make the study in "your" paper? Did they use greenhouses and provide different concentrations of CO2? No, they used an econometric model. Magically, this model is somewhat right because it suits your argument.

Why don't you focus in natural flora, take at least several thousand of species (by family) - and come with some figure about the real ability vegetation has both to thrive in a context of carbon emission and to offset carbon dioxide content? Why don't you find controlled experiments about crops?

You certainly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[macdoc]

Snort....published ON LINE by two ecomomists out of Texas and Bangkok
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1128-x#close


That is the "quality" of your "science" AM..????!!!


Lets try a summary of a report published in Nature instead..

They’ve grown 41 different varieties of grains and legumes in open fields, with levels of carbon dioxide expected in the middle of this century.
“It is possibly the most significant health threat that has been documented for climate change,” said lead author Dr Samuel Myers from the Harvard School of Public Health.
“We found significant reductions in iron, zinc and protein in rice and wheat, and we found significant reductions in iron and zinc in soybeans and field peas as well,” he said.

Scale of the impacts
CO2 levels of 546-568 parts per million would reduce nutrients in grains and legumes by the following amounts
Wheat – zinc 9.3%, iron 5.1% and protein 6.3%
Rice – zinc 3.3%, iron 5.2% and protein 7.8%
Field Peas – zinc 6.8%, iron 4.1% and protein 2.1%
Soybeans – zinc 5.1%, iron 4.1% and protein 4.6%
No significant reductions in maize or sorghum

http://internationalpresentationass...cantly-reduces-nutrients-in-major-food-crops/

 

[Reality Check]

That's a really interesting read. I did see one glaring problem though.
...
No mention of cropland.

That is because cropland is not anything to do with hurricanes.
Cropland is not currently "Maybe the single greatest factor besides emissions".
Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The Cenozoic expansion of grasslands did not happen today !

The large scale conversion of forests to grasslands in modern times could have an similar effect on climate.
There is no "glossing over" the concerns with soil quality, e.g. see Peak Water, Peak Oil…Now, Peak Soil?

The world’s 3.4 billion ha of rangeland and pastures has the potential to sequester or absorb up to 10 percent of the annual carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production, estimates Ólafur Arnalds, a soil scientist at the Agricultural University of Iceland.

Eliminating overgrazing and using other pasture management techniques will reduce the number of animals on the land in the short term but it is better for the long term health of grazing lands. While these practises can help with climate change, there many other good reasons to adopt them, Arnalds told IPS.

That view is echoed by many here since determining exactly how much carbon a farm field or pasture can absorb from the atmosphere is highly variable and difficult to determine.

Proper land management can help with climate change but in no way does it reduce the need to make major reductions in fossil fuel use, said Guðmundur Halldórsson, a research co-ordinator at the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, co-host of the conference.

And using farmland or pastures as a ‘carbon sponges’ will lead to all sorts of problems, Halldórsson told IPS.

Of course, if the primary reason was to sequester carbon then we should forget about grassland - tropical rainforest and peatlands would be the areas to expand.

 

[Trakar]

No but it does contradict the warmist party line that food production will suffer

Actually, it does nothing of the sort. What it does establish, to any objective reading of the actual study and its conclusions, is that much of the advances in crop yields over that last century are probably more due to atmospheric CO2 increases and not technological developments. Rising temperatures, shifting rain patterns and general poleward shifts of biomes to smaller slices of land with geographies and clime conditions that are otherwise unsuitable for agriculture of the type our modern society demands are beyond the explorations and considerations of this largely economic treatise.

This makes your post irrelevant to the discussion for which it was offered (as you admit) and your interpretation of its content incorrect.

 

[CapelDodger]

I brought that up here and my posts vanished. Shucks, I can even prove it is happening, but what's the point?

You can prove that data is being altered to hide the truth? How on Earth can you do that?

There is always moving of the goal posts, rationalizations or worse.

You've set the goalposts. Prove that data is being altered to hide the truth and you've scored.

Nobody here who believes in warming is the least bit skeptical of anything that makes it seem like there is more warming.

Kestrel's read the reasoning behind the alterations rather than take it on trust. On the face of it they are perfectly reasonable. You, on the other hand, have to present proof that these are not, in fact, the reasons for the alterations and that the real motive is to hide the truth. Tricky, but I've seen some amazing tricks pulled in my time.

That's what you think the problem is? Not that with one fell swoop the NCDC just changed the entire climate history of the US?

Your problem is going to be proving this was done not in order to improve the record but in order to conceal the truth.

And every bit of it was to make the present seem warmer, and the past colder?

I realise you've proved this to yourself quite adequately, but normal people are still going with the stated purpose - to get an improved record.

That doesn't make you skeptical at all?

I'm highly sceptical of your claim that you can prove malicious intent.

The claim is "they measured things different back then", but it seems they just figured this out in 2014. So now we are supposed to believe the records are correct. But last year, the records were all wrong.

The records have been improved, unless the procedure used was unsound, which seems unlikely. It's been determined by a bunch of knowledgable people and examined by many others, none of whom are, you concede, conspiring together. The record is still not exactly right but very likely improved.

In fact, according to this logic, up until a few months ago, the entire climate history the NCDC showed the world was actually wrong.

But now it's OK.

Now it's probably better, but it wasn't wildly wrong before. Not enough to make any significant difference to what's going on even in the US. Even the subject is of marginal interest.

Also, they already changed it years ago, supposedly for the same reason. This is the second time they changed the records.

Your point being?

But it certainly shows that the warming is due to humans.

I'd ask how you work that out but I'd prefer a look at your proof of malicious intent first. That'll be a fascinating construction.

 

[Reality Check]

That's what you think the problem is? Not that with one fell swoop the NCDC just changed the entire climate history of the US?

For a start, Red Baron Farms reply was not about the NCDC - it was about hurricanes (but derailed into carbon sequestration in soil).
Let us see - NCDC uses standard scientific practice to account for errors in equipment and you complain bout it, r-j !
The idiocy of using raw data fro weather stations without taking in account changes in their location, environment, construction, gaps in data, etc. should be obvious to you, even if it is not obvious to the climate change deniers.

And every bit of it was to make the present seem warmer, and the past colder?

No, r-j. That is an abysmally bad and unsupported accusation of scientific fraud.

That doesn't make you skeptical at all?

Standard scientific techniques should not make anyone with knowledge of science skeptical, r-j.
People ignorant about science or in denial of science would be "skeptical" though.

The claim is "they measured things different back then", but it seems they just figured this out in 2014.

No, r-j. An ignorant news article was written in 2014. It was repeating lies in a blog about the simple fact that weather station data has been adjusted for changes in the weather stations for over 80 years. There was a improvement in 2000 that this blogger obsessed about. There was an improvement in 2011:
NOAA's 1981-2010 Climate Normals

That blogger is so ignorant that he plots raw temperature data .
The "reporter" is so incompetent that he just parrots that ignorance and the delusion of"replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models". The raw temperature data is replaced by adjusted and averages temperature data.
ETA: The ignorance or denial of the "hockey stick" graph raises its ugly head yet again! The "reporter"s insult about "fudging" the data reflects your accusation above, r-j.

So now we are supposed to believe the records are correct. But last year, the records were all wrong.

No, r-j.
So now we (as in the climate scientists at NOAA) believe the adjusted records are more accurate. But pre-2000 the adjusted records were less accurate.