Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Repeating the same proved-false claims over and over again is not a good look for you.

 

Right: your error is in not understanding the relevance of Sinclair's observation to this topic.

 

No, I am identifying the FACT that decades-old temperature records have been altered to remove data that are inconsistent with the CO2 climate narrative.

The evidence has been documented over and over again, and posted here many times, and you know it:

https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/#gsc.tab=0

 

Not true. Denier's conspiracy theory.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

To suggest — 14 years after the fact — that identifying publicly discussed adjustments to raw data whose methods have been published in peer-reviewed journals represents catching scientists “red-handed” in “the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered” exposes only the ignorance of the author, not some nefarious sleight of hand by climate scientists. As such, the claim is rated "False."

 

Nope. Fact.

Snopes? On climate?

Garbage. The adjustments were not publicly discussed -- other than in misleading and disingenuous ex post facto rationalizations among those making them -- and the methods were not published in peer-reviewed journals until after the adjustments were a fait accompli, and have still not been made fully transparent.

 

Then why were they published in peer reviewed journals if the scientific methods weren't correct as you claim?

Ask any farmer whether your hypothesis fits their experiences of the effects of recent climate changes and increasing global temperatures on their farming practices.

 

None of your continual repetitions and personal attacks of the messenger changes the fact there is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

You targeted that at me. And, it is pure ad hom.

 

Now, you have to find out why those changes were made.

 

What you are suggesting is a conspiracy theory reaching throughout all the various sciences related to climate.

That is beyond possibility.

 

I missed the hypothesis. Went back a couple pages and haven’t found it. I would be interested in sharing my experience with agricultural production and climate change. What’s the hypothesis?

 

If you look back, I think you'll find it was Brighton's hypothesis. If so, you should ask him.

 

One of her hypotheses is that the recent increase in global temperatures is caused by increases in solar activity, and not by increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity, including burning fossil fuels, deforestation etc. An alternative hypothesis is there has been no recent global warming and climate change, and the meteorological records have been altered in peer reviewed publications. And presumably she has other alternative hypotheses.

 

I can’t ask the guy talking about it on a public forum? Hmmm.

 

Hey - just helping you with your confusion about who said what.

 

No confusion on my part. Never made any claim about who said what. Just asked the guy talking about a certain hypothesis what it was. Unfortunately the guy who brought it up can’t pin it down to less than three or four possibilities.

Will certainly answer the “farmer” part of the question when I’m done with my “farming” for the day….

 

Ok, so nothing pertaining directly to agriculture. That’s probably why I couldn’t locate it I was looking for the wrong thing.

It’s pretty difficult to not notice climate change as a farmer. Climate is pretty much your life. It’s definitely getting warmer. And wetter. Both of which have very positive effects on production. Here’s long and short term trends in precipitation vital to agriculture in my state.




Here’s a recent study of corn (the major crop) yields in my area. Yields have been increasing and 48% of those gains are due to climate change.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.10...mer-reported,climate trend during this period.

Nebraska uses a lot of irrigation in crop production. I often hear folks claim that isn’t sustainable and the aquifer we use will run dry. But correctly managed, the aquifer is completely sustainable. Since the 1940’s, the aquifer has been depleted less than 1%. And the rate of decline is slowing, with actual increases in many parts of the state.

https://www.urnrd.org/jim-bendfeldt-respecting-ogallala-aquifer

As far as farming practices, it’s not difficult to leverage the increased precipitation into higher productivity. Even the slight increase in “extreme” precipitation events like heavy rain that are vilified in the popular climate narrative are leveraged into net positives.


Because I “live” climate change I have a unique perspective on things like extreme precipitation events. When an extreme precipitation event occurs I’m not ticked off because it washed out a fence that will cost me $20 to repair. I’m thankful that it replenished the Ogallala Aquifer I’m parked over (extreme precipitation events are the primary driver of un-consolidated aquifer replenishment in many geographic regions). I’m thankful it allowed myself and my neighbors to shut off irrigation wells of which some are more dependent on fossil fuels than others. I’m thankful it fills ponds in the pasture so less energy is used to supply stock water. I don’t care about the $20 cost because the event benefited me thousands of dollars in the short term and thousands more long term. I understand the environmental and economic impacts of such an event more often than not are net beneficial. It frustrates me when the general public is influenced to believe extreme precipitation is always bad. In fact THEY are benefiting too because everything I produce is produced more economically and in greater volume so everything from food to spark plugs to candles are more plentiful and economical for consumers. Are there exceptions where costs outweigh benefits? Sure. But I believe it’s important folks are aware of all the BENEFITS as well as the costs.

We had a bit of a hailstorm the other day. I was thankful, as it was net beneficial to me. It’s possible warmer weather earlier in the spring is/will resulting/result in increased likelihood of hail early in the season. People who only consume a one sided narrative will see that as a problem for agriculture. But they aren’t factoring in the potential huge net benefit an early season hailstorm can provide me.

I don’t know if some PF member’s hypothesis fits my experience or not. We didn’t exactly nail the hypothesis down. But real world experience certainly conflicts with a great deal of what many are led to believe about climate change in relation to agriculture.

 

You live inland farming in a particular region of the USA where there hasn't been enough change to make corn hard to grow.

Good for you!!

But, that isn't the world.

 

“Ask any farmer…. “. LOL

But, but, but….

Just for fun.

Let’s have a look at SCIENCE related to global agriculture. First, there is often concern about arid regions. Let’s look at productivity changes in arid regions as temps increase.

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

Some studies on agriculture production are flawed in that they do not account for adaption by producers. Here’s a glimpse of what scientists predict global scope of agriculture going forward. From scientists that understand agricultural producers always adapt. That we have been adapting since the dawn of agriculture and we won’t stop. When growing seasons lengthen we plant genetics that yield more in longer growing seasons. When precipitation increases we plant genetics that are targeted to benefit from more precipitation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34411-5

Let’s look at what scientists say about Australian wheat yields increasing with climate change. Typically scientists that have specialties in agronomy know more about agriculture than politicians.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096321000292

Improving yields of Australian wheat with warming climate has a long history. This study was published in 1997 and looked at climate impacts on Australian wheat yields since the 1950’s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/387484a0#:~:text=Climate trends appear to be,temperatures being the dominant influence.

We can look at the UK as well. Wheat is one of the most important food crops on the planet. It’s a freaking island.

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1377/2022/

Back to South East US.

Rice production China.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafa55

Ya’ll have been fed a one sided narrative that is essentially a lie of omission. You are never educated on the positive effects of climate change.

I prefer evidence obtained by application of the scientific method to what journalists say. If the evidence isn’t founded on peer reviewed published research I’m not particularly interested in it. Climate science should involve science, not just unsubstantiated opinions of journalists. It should involve full disclosure, like the fact climate change over the last decades (which is the subject) has increased agricultural production all over the planet, not just where I live.

The wild and crazy thing is that I don’t live in some magical mystical place where warmer weather, longer growing seasons, and more precipitation have positive effects on agriculture. This “magic” happens all over the planet.

This isn’t complicated. Look what happened during the little ice age. Look at the temperature of the most lush areas of the planet. Look at the temperatures of the most desolate areas. Is the Amazon warmer than northern Yukon? What’s the agricultural potential of the Amazon vs. the Yukon? Where are humans killing trees to plant food crops? The Yukon or the Amazon? Look at the information I provided from the IPCC showing increased growth in even warm arid regions due to climate change.

Look at data from NASA. NASA observations show this between 2000 and 2018. Does that look like changing climate is negatively impacting global ability to turn solar energy into food?



But, but, but….sea level. Yeh. Guess what fossil fuels have done to coastal land area over the last few decades?

And corn isn’t “easy” to grow. Never has been, never will be.

 

I’ve never understood why people get upset about or deny warming can increase food supplies. Seems a bit “cold” and uncaring.

 

No, a few people in positions of power are all that is needed. The rest are just responding to the incentives.

Look at what has been going on for more than a century in economics.

 

I know very well why, and so do you.

 

Are you familiar with the peer-reviewed journals of economics?

Unlike you, I have known farmers personally for many years. They always complain about the weather, but I have yet to hear one say it is generally worse now than it was 50 years ago, let alone 90 years ago during the Dust Bowl. If anything, there seems to be more rain now than 30-50 years ago, which is sometimes inconvenient, but enables them to grow higher-value crops.

 

Pointing out the fact that your posts -- which are far more repetitive than mine -- lack any sort informational or entertainment value is not a personal attack on the messenger, sorry.

I've already proved that claim is false.

 

Unlike you, as a retired research scientist, I am familiar with peer-reviewed scientific journals and I did some peer reviewing.

And unlike you, as a retired orchardist in Ardmona and having grown up on an orchard owned by my parents, I am personally well aware of the issues of weather and agricultural production and the challenges of global warming.