Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

[Buffalo Roam]

If the same model is feed the same data and produces the same results it's repeatable.

As for the rest of what you've had to say, such is the short comings of having finite computing power.

You say it like it's new, and yet, honestly, any literate human being with a basic understanding of what it takes to make a usable, computable model, on available fiscal and time budgets (data fed to the model is also an influence).

You want more accurate models? Vote for the politician that's going to raise tax rates and increase funding for climate change research.

Seriously. Sub-grid dynamics don't invalidate the model, they can be largely accounted for in the error bars, and as technology and models improve, so do the predictions.

But again the data has to be culled and massaged to such a point as to be usless, as justification, in using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well the IPCC seems to have a answer, up to 550ppm:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report confirms that CO2 enrichment under field conditions consistently increases biomass and yields in the range of 5–15%, with CO2 concentration elevated to 550 ppm Levels of CO2.

You did nor read a word I said did you? and what about increase drought, lost of farm land to deserts, loss of land to the sea, 5-15% may not even cover the losses in production cause by climate change, 5-15% is certainly not the dramatic increases in plant growth you were eluding to.

 

[Trippy]

But again the data has to be culled and massaged to such a point as to be usless, as justification, in using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

Congratulations on not actually understanding what I said.

 

[countezero]

I don't see why I should be drawn into a prolonged and formal debate over a topic I really don't care about much. What *does* concern me (and is the topic of this thread, coincidentally) is how there is evidence suggesting that it may be common for climate researchers to 'sex up' their data for political purposes. Furthermore, it's blatantly obvious that 'groupthink' exists within the climate research field, which aims to suppress any dissenting views.

Exactly. I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to have a formal debate, either. But my concerns are similar to what has been expressed above. That, along with the plans to combat global warming that would radically alter the way the world functions, something no one likes to talk about...

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You did nor read a word I said did you? and what about increase drought, lost of farm land to deserts, loss of land to the sea, 5-15% may not even cover the losses in production cause by climate change, 5-15% is certainly not the dramatic increases in plant growth you were eluding to.

Funny thing is that you don't read a word I say now do you.

ElectricFetus, all Chicken Little projection, none of which are demonstarble as of today, and only exist in the models of the true believers, who will not share the base data or methodology.

Now what about lands that become tillable as the world warms, large areas of Cananda, Russia, Northern China, Scandanavia, would become avalable for new crops.

And as you just stated;

5-15% may not even cover the losses in production cause by climate change,

A very big maybe, again none of that is demonstrable in the world as of today

5-15% is certainly not the dramatic increases in plant growth you were eluding to.

Not dramatic? most farmers I know would kill for a 5% increase in crop production, let alone 15%, and you claim to have farm roots? or how about this;

Agricultural Water Management
Volume 7, Issues 1-3, September 1983, Pages 55-72
Plant production and management under drought conditions

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=3dc15a8ea48ab8a6993489fc441db52e

Plant production and management under drought conditions
Increasing atmospheric CO2: effects on crop yield, water use and climate

B.A. Kimballa and S.B. Idsoa

aU.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040 U.S.A.


Accepted 15 February 1983. Contribution from Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online 26 March 2003.

Abstract
Probable effects of increasing global atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop yield, crop water use, and world climate are discussed. About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from the literature and analyzed. CO2 enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by an 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Another 46 observations of the effects of CO2 enrichment on transpiration were extracted and averaged. These data showed that a doubling of CO2 concentration could reduce transpiration by 34%, which combined with the yield increase, indicates that water use efficiency may double.

Several theoretical models have predicted that the doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the earth's temperature by 2–3°C, which could seriously disrupt agricultural production. More recent empirical evidence suggests that the warming may only be about 0.25°C, so the primary effects on agriculture are likely to be the beneficial increases in crop yields and water use efficiency.

ps: Thanks to my brother-in-law, a farmer who pointed this out to me.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Funny thing is that you don't read a word I say now do you.

ElectricFetus, all Chicken Little projection, none of which are demonstarble as of today, and only exist in the models of the true believers, who will not share the base data or methodology.

you can look up there data and methodologies on many peer review journals!

Now what about lands that become tillable as the world warms, large areas of Cananda, Russia, Northern China, Scandanavia, would become avalable for new crops.

while other areas become deserts, in total more land could be lost then gained,

And as you just stated;
A very big maybe, again none of that is demonstrable in the world as of today

Big difference in philosophy here, yours is "nothing wrong, its going to be great" mine is "always prepared for the worse" the results your philosophy is all is well or we are fucked, the results of mine is we make it through and make it through.

Not dramatic? most farmers I know would kill for a 5% increase in crop production, let alone 15%, and you claim to have farm roots? or how about this;

Compared to say a 20% drop do to drought, yeah that not dramatic at all.

and the study you cited utilized green house data, the study I cited used open field data and got much lower performance, In fact the study I cited eve references yours and its flaws.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

you can look up there data and methodologies on many peer review journals!

Really, so provide site references to peer review and the data,

while other areas become deserts, in total more land could be lost then gained,

Again the Chicken Little approach, projected loses, from projected data.

Big difference in philosophy here, yours is "nothing wrong, its going to be great" mine is "always prepared for the worse" the results your philosophy is all is well or we are fucked, the results of mine is we make it through and make it through.

Really, and your philosophy is paranoia based on projected data, being prepared only works if you prepare for factual events.

Just how many end of the World in 10 years have we had in the last 60 years,
and how many of them have come true?

Compared to say a 20% drop do to drought, yeah that not dramatic at all.

Can you demonstrate that in the real world?

and the study you cited utilized green house data, the study I cited used open field data and got much lower performance.

But isn't that were all of your prediction's of Co2, destroying the world, droughts, sea rises, yada...yada...yada... come from to? "green house data" from the Lab, Models, projections.....not demonstrable as taking place in the real world environment.

In fact the study I cited eve references yours and its flaws.

And? What about the flaws in your referenced study?

 

[mordea]

One group of researches do not speak for them all, as such you can't make such generalizations.

I didn't make any generalisations. And btw, you are exhibiting that knee-jerk defensiveness that I mentioned earlier.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

ElectricFetus, since you are so worried about being prepared, what about the fact that we are still in a Ice Age, a Intergalicial Period, but still a Ice Age?

We are out of the last Glacial Maximum that peaked about 20,000 years ago, but still in a Ice Age, or more specifically the Quaternary glaciation, and are in interglacial period, which marked the beginning of the Holocene epoch.

Did you know that?

Or how about?

CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. However, studies indicate that CO2 is not the cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[8] The explanation for this natural CO2 variation "remains a difficult attribution problem."[8]

8.^ a b Joos, Fortunat; Prentice, I. Colin (2004). "A Paleo-Perspective on Changes in Atmospheric CO2 and Climate" (PDF). The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate, and the Natural World. Scope. 62. Washington D.C.: Island Press. pp. 165–186. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/OUTGOING/publications/joos03scope_proofs.pdf. Retrieved 2008-05-07.


CO2 is not the cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions.

So, now what?

 

[noodler]

But: "CO2 is not the cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[8] "

how do you characterize or understand the importance of the feedback effect? It says that once CO2 is elevated, so is the feedback effect - so what is it, eh BR? Any ideas about this, supposedly important enough to mention feedback mechanism, with a reference and everything?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

But: "CO2 is not the cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[8] "

how do you characterize or understand the importance of the feedback effect? It says that once CO2 is elevated, so is the feedback effect - so what is it, eh BR? Any ideas about this, supposedly important enough to mention feedback mechanism, with a reference and everything?

Now is that a positive feed back, warming? or negitive feed back, cooling?

It from my reading it would seem to be a negitive feedback, cooling.

Now this is interesting, a article from Meteorologist Craig James, I posted about Co2's, on 1 Nov. 2007, is now missing in the NOAA site, and list as not found?

But Here is the information from the a Forum search. and also from

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/11/atmospheric-co2-levels-follow.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

Meteorologist Craig James explains Earth's Temperature Regulator

Excerpt: It seems to me as if there hasn't really been much attention given to the fact that CO2 increases occur AFTER the temperature begins rising and therefore cannot be the initial cause of global warming. Even the most vocal proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) acknowledge this fact. The web site Real Climate states:From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later.

Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release.They are well aware that CO2 does not cause the initial warming but they say it does amplify the warming once underway. The interesting thing to me though is what causes the warming to stop, even though CO2 is still RISING? Take a look at this chart from the Vostok ice core record over the last 460,000 years. The second chart is a close up of the last 18,000 years (since the last glacial maximum). The third chart is of the last 200 years, encompassing the industrial revolution. Click on the charts for full screen versions.

The charts were all taken from this web page. (Sorry for the way the charts are spaced on this page, the blog editor does not handle graphics well). Notice on all three charts the recent rapid rise in CO2 on the right hand side of the chart WITHOUT an equivalent rise in the temperature. There was a rise in temperature but you would expect it to be more if the response was linear. This seems to be good evidence that the temperature response to rising CO2 levels is logarithmic, not linear. A subsequent doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will not produce the amount of temperature increase the first doubling did. But what is even more interesting to me can be seen on the first chart going back 460,000 years. There are five warm periods, or interglacials, on the chart. The current one has lasted the longest. Every time the temperature has warmed to more than 2 degrees Celcius above the mid 20th century benchmark (the 0 degree line) for a significant time, cooling followed.

It appears that if the +2C threshold is exceeded for some period of time, a new glacial, or cooling, phase follows. According to the authors of the web site where I got the chart: A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. I think it is logarithmic, not linear or exponential as the authors suggest, meaning it will take much longer than 40 years to reach the +2C threshold. But once it reaches that threshold, what makes the temperature start to fall again, especially if CO2 levels are still rising? Does the earth have a built in temperature regulator?

Does melting of the Arctic ice slow down the thermohaline circulation enough to initiate a new ice age? Or is the "iris effect" real as described in this article? Whatever it is, there certainly seems to evidence from the Vostok ice core, which the AGW people accept, that the Earth will again regulate itself to prevent any runaway global warming.

http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=2563

 

[James R]

Funny how Buffalo Roam has plenty of arguments in this thread, but won't agree to a formal debate on the topic.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Funny how Buffalo Roam has plenty of arguments in this thread, but won't agree to a formal debate on the topic.

JameR, isn't this considered flaming?

And these would be the same points that I would bring up in a debate, questioning Anthropogenic Warming.

Now, if you really read my post, you would see that I do agree that there is Global Warming/Climate Change, there has always been Global Warming/Climate Change, .....It is that I don't see it proven as Anthropogenic, or that we can do anything to effect or affect the cycles.

To many other things that aren't included as clausal factors, like Sun Spot Cycle....Milankovitch Cycles....even the ammount of Co2s released from natural sources, it is the sun and it's out put cycles that drives our warming and cooling, and with out the Sun or a reduced out put Sun, we are a Ice Ball floating through space.

With the release of the EMails, we see a pattern of intentionally deleted data and information, blocked FOIA request, a pattern of not allowing for a open peer review, only true believes need review.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Tas van Ommen" <tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Subject: RoG paper
Date: Fri May 7 16:43:21 2004

Dear Tas and Caspar,

Attached is the proof version of the RoG paper with Mike Mann. This is about 99.99%
the final one. Mike and I sent back a few small changes to AGU a month or so ago. Keep
this to yourself for a while yet - I would expect the paper out sometime in the
July/August
period.
Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called
Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything,partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the
data
through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we've used in the
RoG
plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we've got from
you? You don't have to do anything, except to reply yes or no !
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.

What He really means is, Steve McIntyre, would shoot hole through them, and show that the Models are not all, nice, accurate, clean, or reliable.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Holy shit! So the U of East Anglia was the only institute that collected data from around the world?
So the only copy in the world has disappeared... unbelievable (seriously)!

No, but they provided much of the data for other Global Warming Models by those deemed acceptable Global Warming Believers, and were afraid to let anyone out side the faith see any of the raw data.

As Mad A pointed out;

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. ​

So all the original data was thrown away "to save space". All we have is the "adjusted data".

Timesonline​

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
So all the original data was thrown away "to save space". All we have is the "adjusted data". ​

Holy Shit! CRU destroyed the raw data, and ony sent out the adjusted data.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

JamesR have you rever heard of Filippo Bruno?

He went against the consensus.

Prominent Scientist and Scholars, claim His views and works to be exaggerated, or outright false.

 

[joepistole]

JamesR have you rever heard of Filippo Bruno?

He went against the consensus.

Prominent Scientist and Scholars, claim His views and works to be exaggerated, or outright false.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is just more chaff. I suggest you answer the challenge proposed by James. It is not flaming to challenge you to a debate.

 

[spidergoat]

BR, your understanding of this issue is equal to your understanding of the Obama birth certificate issue, the Kerry medal issue, and the Bush National Guard issue. You attach yourself to a minor detail as if it should undermine the truly relevant ones, but you just make yourself look stupid.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Really, so provide site references to peer review and the data

1. Upen up Scirus search
2. Type global warming
3. Hit "journal soruces:

31,346 hits
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=global+warming&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=jnl

Again the Chicken Little approach, projected loses, from projected data.

and your doing the opposite: projected gains from projected data.

Really, and your philosophy is paranoia based on projected data, being prepared only works if you prepare for factual events.

It quite factual, even if it wasn't being prepared and CWA means that your also prepare to the likely mundane events as well, if you live in california you get a earth quake survival kit if you care about peak oil you invest in alternative energy, if oil say cheap for decades to come (which its not even today) oh well at least you reduce losses in your energy bill, but no that showing weakness to the treehuggers and terrorist right, we got to keep sucking Saudi dick and buying their oil, that will show them Muslim terrorist right?

Just how many end of the World in 10 years have we had in the last 60 years,
and how many of them have come true?

I never said the world was ending, I never said it was ending in 10 years or 60 years, I specified before the changes global warming will cause are essential adaptable, killing millions in 3rd world countries over decades, which you probably don't give a fuck about and generally repressing but not stopping our economy, but the good times are long over, we're in the never ending recession and economic instability, and your not going to tell me that is not happening either.

Can you demonstrate that in the real world?

No more then you can demonstrate real world 30-40% growth improvement in plants.

But isn't that were all of your prediction's of Co2, destroying the world, droughts, sea rises, yada...yada...yada... come from to? "green house data" from the Lab, Models, projections.....not demonstrable as taking place in the real world environment.

For example in the link you keep ignoring it utilizes satellite data which actually measures the change in IR absorption cause by CO2, that actually measures water temperatures, etc, but that not real enough for you, picture of glaciers disappearing not real, its the devil in the optics tricking us all right?

​

And? What about the flaws in your referenced study?[/QUOTE]

that green house models don't correlate with in the field models. The field models is more like how we grow most crops and thus I would put my bet on the field model results.

If we are in an Ice age we have been doing fine in it so far, and again one study does not make a fact, one study that say CO2 was not the cause for ice age transitions before does not mean squat about anthropogenic CO2 emissions today causing climate change.

 

[superstring01]

Mod Notes: ElectricFetus has been suspended for three days for flaming/abusive language.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. This is just more chaff. I suggest you answer the challenge proposed by James. It is not flaming to challenge you to a debate.

Right over you head as usual.