Climategate?

djpbarry · 08-03-2010 06:06PM

Mozart1986 wrote: »

He means that with more CO2 in the atmosophere plants do better, and there are larger crop yields. Its really simple but you're trying to obfuscate the issue.

It's not nearly as simple as you claim. All other factors being equal, then yes, an increase in CO2 concentration probably would be beneficial. However, all other factors are not equal and, as such, these changing parameters must be taken into consideration, which complicates the issue considerably. For example, there is evidence that tree growth in tropical regions is slowing considerably due to changes in temperature and precipitation:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01033.x

Mozart1986 · 08-03-2010 08:14PM

djpbarry wrote: »

It's not nearly as simple as you claim. All other factors being equal, then yes, an increase in CO2 concentration probably would be beneficial. However, all other factors are not equal and, as such, these changing parameters must be taken into consideration, which complicates the issue considerably. For example, there is evidence that tree growth in tropical regions is slowing considerably due to changes in temperature and precipitation:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01033.x

Well obviously! Don't be so pedantic. As was pointed out earlier, there is a lot of peer reviewed literature to support the claim made. I was clarifying the assertion made earlier, but its obviously more complicated. But sure, everything about Climate Change is complicated. I doubt that everywhere around the world the higher concentration of CO2 benefits plantlife and crop-yields. Its a general law in a dinamic system.

djpbarry · 08-03-2010 08:40PM

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Well obviously! Don't be so pedantic.

I'm not being pedantic. I've heard it claimed a number of times that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in global crop production, but the evidence just isn't there to back it up.

08-03-2010 08:54PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic. I've heard it claimed a number of times that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in global crop production, but the evidence just isn't there to back it up.

Well you need to ask yourself, why would growers go through the effort of increasing CO2 concentrations within polytunnels or other enclosed horticultural building, even heard that cannabis growers use this technique!

As for global crop production, do you know if CO2 levels have increased everywhere or just in industrialised regions of the earth. I ask as I don't know!

Macha · 08-03-2010 09:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well you need to ask yourself, why would growers go through the effort of increasing CO2 concentrations within polytunnels or other enclosed horticultural building, even heard that cannabis growers use this technique!

You're making the assumption that growers use polytunnels for this reason (and only this reason). I have a greenhouse and I use it to conserve heat and so that I can work in any weather in it. Increasing CO2 levels is certainly not my prime reason for having it.

Again, I'd like some evidence that increased CO2 levels have resulted in an increase in plant/crop growth. In fact, changing weather patterns in Ireland are resulting in significantly lower crop yields. And what other impacts of climate change (drought/flooding/unsettling of ecosystems etc) will affect agricultural yields.

In fact, a report came out recently showing that climate change may have significantly negative impacts on global agriculture:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6145M520100205

gizmo555 · 08-03-2010 09:50PM

taconnol wrote: »

You're making the assumption that growers use polytunnels for this reason (and only this reason). I have a greenhouse and I use it to conserve heat and so that I can work in any weather in it. Increasing CO2 levels is certainly not my prime reason for having it.

I think you're reading too much into the post. I took it to mean some polytunnel users add CO2 to their tunnels (which is a fact), not that all do.

08-03-2010 09:55PM

taconnol wrote: »

You're making the assumption that growers use polytunnels for this reason (and only this reason). I have a greenhouse and I use it to conserve heat and so that I can work in any weather in it. Increasing CO2 levels is certainly not my prime reason for having it.

Again, I'd like some evidence that increased CO2 levels have resulted in an increase in plant/crop growth. In fact, changing weather patterns in Ireland are resulting in significantly lower crop yields. And what other impacts of climate change (drought/flooding/unsettling of ecosystems etc) will affect agricultural yields.

In fact, a report came out recently showing that climate change may have significantly negative impacts on global agriculture:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6145M520100205

I am NOT making any such assumption! I know why growers use polytunnels.

Changing weather patterns do not equate to climate change, that was an arqument already discussed further up the list. Who knows, this year may be drier, warm and sunny, perfect growing conditions.

As for proof that CO2 inproves yeilds follow this link!

Macha · 08-03-2010 10:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am NOT making any such assumption! I know why growers use polytunnels.

Growers of what?

Deleted User wrote: »

Changing weather patterns do not equate to climate change, that was an arqument already discussed further up the list. Who knows, this year may be drier, warm and sunny, perfect growing conditions.

I don't think you get to suddenly decide the debate is settled in your favour...

Deleted User wrote: »

As for proof that CO2 inproves yeilds follow this link!

And what about something that will actually feed people.

gizmo555 · 08-03-2010 10:16PM

taconnol wrote: »

And what about something that will actually feed people.

Presumably the users of the product whose site I linked to are not all or even mainly cannabis growers.

Macha · 08-03-2010 10:43PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Presumably the users of the product whose site I linked to are not all or even mainly cannabis growers.

Not all? You typed in "CO2 cannabis grower".

This is getting quite ridiculous. Give me links to studies that show co2 increases significantly improve the yields of food crops, not a google search result. And prove to me that the marginal benefits of co2 increases clearly outweigh the other negative impacts of climate change.

People sell countless products based on false science. Plenty of companies selling wheatgrass because of it's enzymes, despite the lack of medical science supporting the premise of the product. Where is the study backing up this product?

And even if you can back it up, you still have to answer my earlier question about the marginal benefits of it outweighing other negative impacts.

08-03-2010 10:56PM

taconnol wrote: »

Not all? You typed in "CO2 cannabis grower".

.

No he didn't! I typed in "CO2 cannabis grower", a bit tongue in cheek, but it goes to show that CO2 does improve the growth in plants, what those plants are grown for is really beside the point.

Macha · 08-03-2010 11:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No he didn't! I typed in "CO2 cannabis grower", a bit tongue in cheek, but it goes to show that CO2 does improve the growth in plants, what those plants are grown for is really beside the point.

You are making gross simplifications to suit your argument - bad science.

The reality is there are many other limiting factors that would cause an increase in co2 concentrations and therefore an increase in plant growth to be of limited value. These limiting factors include:
1) Water
2) Nitrogen
3) Excess heat impeding growth in areas that are already hot (ie around the equator, where most of the world's biodiversity is located)
4) Increased ground-level ozone
5) Acidification of soil and water

Read here on a research project showing a 1% increase in temperatures results in a 50% decrease in plant growth in forests in Panama:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626271.900-cosub2sub-dont-count-on-the-trees.html

Plants and various crops are far, far more complex subjects than you would like to make out. The very fact that you lump all plants in together shows a lack of knowledge of basic botany.

08-03-2010 11:04PM

taconnol wrote: »

And prove to me that the marginal benefits of co2 increases clearly outweigh the other negative impacts of climate change.

You still have CO2 convicted of crimes against the planet!
The ridiculous thing is the fact that CO2 is the villian of the piece and the main culprit, while overlooking deforrestation, opencast mining, consumerism & bad waste management, overpopulation etc etc

Plus of course the prime driver of the climate, the Sun and the Earth's orbit around it!

djpbarry · 09-03-2010 01:01AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The ridiculous thing is the fact that CO2 is the villian of the piece and the main culprit, while overlooking deforrestation, opencast mining, consumerism & bad waste management, overpopulation etc etc

Nobodies overlooking other man-made problems – look at the other threads on this forum, for example; is every thread about climate change and/or atmospheric CO2?

Deleted User wrote: »

Plus of course the prime driver of the climate, the Sun and the Earth's orbit around it!

Indeed; what of it? Is this where you trot out the “recent increases in mean global temperature are a result of variations in solar activity” claim once again?

Mahatma coat · 09-03-2010 03:29AM

Well What had you intended to Trot out instead???

All Life, all energy on this planet and in our Solar System comes from the Sun, It'd be the first place I'd look if things started getting Hotter

Macha · 09-03-2010 08:57AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

All Life, all energy on this planet and in our Solar System comes from the Sun, It'd be the first place I'd look if things started getting Hotter

Yes and do you understand where the CO2 is coming from? It is coming from plants and animals that took in solar energy (either through photosynthesis or eating plants) were laid down and became fossil fuels.

They represent millions of years of solar energy that we are burning as fast as we can.

djpbarry · 09-03-2010 10:18AM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

All Life, all energy on this planet and in our Solar System comes from the Sun, It'd be the first place I'd look if things started getting Hotter

Indeed. But there has been no upward trend in solar irradiance, has there?

Macha · 09-03-2010 10:34AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed. But there has been no upward trend in solar irradiance, has there?

Exactly.

Abstract

We have previously placed the solar contribution to recent global warming in context using observations and without recourse to climate models. It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. The present paper extends that analysis to include the effects of the various time constants with which the Earth's climate system might react to solar forcing. The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a combination of the two. The implications, and the relative merits, of the various TSI composite data series are discussed and independent tests reveal that the PMOD composite used in our previous paper is the most realistic. Use of the ACRIM composite, which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract

10-03-2010 07:58PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8561004.stm

Scientists to review climate body

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has asked the world's science academies to review work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Work will be co-ordinated by the Inter-Academy Council, which brings together bodies such as the UK's Royal Society.

Yet another review! Those emails certainly stirred up a hornets nest!

Mahatma coat · 08-07-2010 02:32AM

Seems to have been long enough now for this to fall out of the public conciousness, and surprise surprise They concluded the report and exhonerated them, they did mention in passing that it might be a bit iffy to refuse an FoI request, but no sanctions have been suggested for these LIARS

coletti · 08-07-2010 08:34AM

The real fallout from these emails is that is has highlighted in the public conscience how many academics operate.

The perception of scientists is that they are rather like Galileo, a noble and honest man struggling with his truth against the might of the catholic church, almost a good versus evil situation.

What these email show, with their crass tone and with their secretive hiding of information from others, is that scientists are jealous, secretive and downright plain nasty in pursuit of their agenda, in pursuit of more and more funding and in pursuit of their own careers.

We've seen this also with the IPCC, a body which has seemed more interested in pushing its own agenda and is prepared to be rather more than economical with the truth.

All of this damages the case they make in anyone with a smidgeon of intelligence, as it becomes harder and harder to believe those whose agenda is other than the pursuit of truth.

Macha · 08-07-2010 11:53AM

coletti wrote: »

What these email show, with their crass tone and with their secretive hiding of information from others, is that scientists are jealous, secretive and downright plain nasty in pursuit of their agenda, in pursuit of more and more funding and in pursuit of their own careers.

So you mean to tell me scientists are human?

coletti wrote: »

We've seen this also with the IPCC, a body which has seemed more interested in pushing its own agenda and is prepared to be rather more than economical with the truth.

No, we haven't seen that. If you bother read up on the review you'd find that Parry said they found "a very small number of near-trivial errors in about 500 pages [and] probably 100,000 statements. I would say that's pretty good going."

coletti wrote: »

All of this damages the case they make in anyone with a smidgeon of intelligence, as it becomes harder and harder to believe those whose agenda is other than the pursuit of truth.

Again, if you bother reading the report you will see the sentence "no errors that would undermine the main conclusions". But then again, there seems to be a willingness to only see what one wants to see in these matters.

coletti · 08-07-2010 01:21PM

taconnol wrote: »

So you mean to tell me scientists are human?

If you need to be told that, then yes. But I was really making a point about perceptions about scientists.

taconnol wrote: »

No, we haven't seen that. If you bother read up on the review you'd find that Parry said they found "a very small number of near-trivial errors in about 500 pages [and] probably 100,000 statements. I would say that's pretty good going."

Again, if you bother reading the report you will see the sentence "no errors that would undermine the main conclusions". But then again, there seems to be a willingness to only see what one wants to see in these matters.

If I "bother" to read up on the review?

I wasn't talking about the review, and perhaps rather than making assumptions that I was, and being patronising, you might consider not making such assumptions.

I had in mind other things, such as the IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035. A claim that was subsequently shown to be based on a propagandist pamphlet and has no scientific basis whatever.

Or the IPCC's claim, in its 2007 report, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest. This claim was based on a report by another environmental activist, has no scientific basis whatever, and was based on what would happen if logging in the region continued.

How any scientist can believe the predictions of a body who appears to claim it has rigorously examined the scientific evidence, when from the above two examples (there are many more similar examples) show that they did not examine the scientific evidence before making such outlandish, and wrong, claims.

djpbarry · 08-07-2010 01:24PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

....no sanctions have been suggested for these LIARS

Wouldn't it be necessary to demonstrate that someone has lied before sanctions could be imposed?

djpbarry · 08-07-2010 01:37PM

coletti wrote: »

Or the IPCC's claim, in its 2007 report, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest. This claim was based on a report by another environmental activist, has no scientific basis whatever, and was based on what would happen if logging in the region continued.

Actually, this was based on a 1999 Nature article by Daniel Nepstad (et al.), who has since endorsed the IPCC's position.

Turtwig · 08-07-2010 01:40PM

coletti wrote: »

Or the IPCC's claim, in its 2007 report, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest. This claim was based on a report by another environmental activist, has no scientific basis whatever, and was based on what would happen if logging in the region continued.

Johnathan Leake originally made the exact same claim that you are making in an article in the Sunday Times. The article has since been retracted by the paper and it has apologised for what was nothing other than some bogus reporting by Leake.

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an "unsubstantiated claim" that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for WWF by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as "green campaigners" with "little scientific expertise." The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.

The original article to which this correction refers has been removed

coletti · 08-07-2010 02:16PM

How about the claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035?

Was that based on scientific evidence?

djpbarry · 08-07-2010 02:22PM

coletti wrote: »

How about the claim that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035?

Was that based on scientific evidence?

Obviously not - it was quite clearly an error. But it was an error that did not feature in the report's overall conclusions.

coletti · 09-07-2010 10:55AM

Indeed. It's interesting to note the error was to state, as fact, indeed as scientifically proven fact, that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 as a result of global warming/climate change.

What they said was that they, the IPCC, had examined the evidence and as a result of that examination it was their view that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035.

Lets not forget the IPCC claim that they represent the overwhelming majority views of all scientists who are involved in the subject, and claim to be a body which is scientifically based.

On this occasion, they have been shown to be representing not a single scientist, but based their claim not on any evidence or any science, but on a news story in a magazine.

It suggests they play loose and fast with the truth, and appear less interested in the truth than I judge they ought to be.

That does not tend to inspire in me faith that I should believe what the IPCC ask me to believe, when this is the standard of the evidence on which they rely.

Macha · 09-07-2010 11:13AM

coletti wrote: »

Indeed. It's interesting to note the error was to state, as fact, indeed as scientifically proven fact, that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 as a result of global warming/climate change.

What they said was that they, the IPCC, had examined the evidence and as a result of that examination it was their view that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035.

Lets not forget the IPCC claim that they represent the overwhelming majority views of all scientists who are involved in the subject, and claim to be a body which is scientifically based.

On this occasion, they have been shown to be representing not a single scientist, but based their claim not on any evidence or any science, but on a news story in a magazine.

It suggests they play loose and fast with the truth, and appear less interested in the truth than I judge they ought to be.

That does not tend to inspire in me faith that I should believe what the IPCC ask me to believe, when this is the standard of the evidence on which they rely.

I think we've already established that they made an error. I'm not sure what further point you're trying to make other than trying to use this error as justification for discrediting the entire organisation, which is very expressly what the authors of the review advised against:

The conclusions are not undermined by any errors, and we'd like that to be the message the world will take

said Professor Martin Parry, co-chair of the section of the report that was under scrutiny.

Climategate?

Comments