Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 Next
Comments 18251 to 18300:
-
MA Rodger at 05:44 AM on 2 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
John S @9,
The criticism of Karl et a; (2015) you describe is six-months old and dealt with here. The paper has stood the test of time and it is not just NOAA and NASA SAT records that show the first half of 2017 to be the second warmest on record and the warmest non-El-Nino Jan-to-June by some way.
NOAA - 2016 +1.07ºC, 2017 +0.91ºC, 2015 +0.86ºC.2010 +0.78ºC.
NASA - 2016 +1.10ºC, 2017 +0.94ºC, 2015 +0.82ºC, 2010 +0.78ºC.
BEST - 2016 +1.06ºC, 2017 +0.96ºC, 2010 +0.79ºC.
BEST - 2016 +1.06ºC, 2017 +0.96ºC, 2010 +0.79ºC.
-
John S at 04:37 AM on 2 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
I just finished viewing a doc on You-Tube entitled “Climategate II Explained – NOAA Whistleblower – Data Manipulation – Global Warming Hoax” by Larouche PA published recently. Wikipedia’s account of Larouche PAC seems entirely economic, no climate change involvement indicated. The gist of the 72 minute lecture by an unidentified (?spokeperson for Larouche PAC?) was that ““NOAA breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.” This was by Karl et all (2015) that claimed warming rate was twice what prior versions showed ( source Anthony Watts October (2015) and argued that truth was shown by satellite data from both UAH and RSS showing a flat line over this period. I know that Anthony Watts is a notorious climate change denial blogger, but rather than just dismissing the whole argument based on its source, I’d rather understand more of the background on this – basically is it true that, as alleged in this doc, NOAA fiddled the data, suppressed any internal dissention and then mysteriously “lost” the data all as revealed by whistleblower John Bates, a 40 year NOAA veteran and eminent climate scientist. I’m well aware that cherry-picking end-points over such a short period is no good way to consider the warming trend and that RSS put out a correction to its earlier data. What I want to know is any specific background on this specific accusation of wrong-doing by Karl et al exposed by Bates..
Later the talk characterizes such antics as typical for climate change advocates, citing the “broken hockey stick” supposedly exposed by McIntyre & MacKitrick in Energy and Environment. I heard Michael Mann’s response that their method was flawed but, again, I’d like to understand this on a deeper level than just “he said, she said”.
It also goes on about NASA supposedly lowering data before 1950 and raising it after 1950 thereby supposedly creating a warming trend. I heard about the correction of “bucket variances” for ocean data but I also thought I’d heard that these NASA adjustments created a lower warming trend not higher – so is the Larouche Pac presentation just a bald-faced lie or is there some more subtle fallacy involved in it?. The same accusation of NASA adjusting data upwards after 1950 was made in another doc on You-Tube, so, on the basis that where there’s smoke, there may be fire, I’m wondering where this story is coming from. I appreciate that adjustments to the temperature record have to be made to produce the best estimate of trend and so this can change retroactively and this fact alone allows the deniers to come in with clod-hopping boots, but as I said above, my understanding was that the net result of these adjustments was a lower warming trend not higher as alleged, so is that just a lie or what?
They also had a more fundamental question which I admit has confused me quite a bit also and that is how it is at all possible to calculate a global average from such a variety of circumstances affecting each temperature measuring device? I saw an explanation on NASA’s web-site of why changes were more reliable to average than absolute values but even so (and even after watching Cowtons’ excellent presentation on Denial 101x) it’s still a baffling subject. Maybe there is a good reference you can give me to read up on this.Moderator Response:[PS] I think you can probably assess the quality of your source when you read the links provided by responders. Bates himself denies any fraud. For more details on how raw temperature data is homogenized, see the myth "Temp record is unreliable". Any further discussion of temperature station homogenization in that thread please.
-
chriskoz at 15:48 PM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
TSI value changes from the solar charts by Tom13, reveal the increase from pre-1700 (Maunder minimum the main reason for LIA) and today is 2W/m2 from 1364 to 1366 (1990s studies), or 1.5W/m2 from 1360 to 1361.5 (AR5 - more reliable source). Attenuating this figure of 1.5W/m2 by 4 (sphere vs. disk surface), and by further 30% for average Earth albedo, you get 1.5/4*70% = about +0.3W/m2 solar forcing on Earth surface between LIA and today.
At the same time, human induced forcing reached 2.29W/m2 according to AR5, and upgraded few months ago to 2.5W/m2.
So if you should have a feeling how AGW signal relates to long term natural signals such as "recovering from the effects of little ice age", you have the answer in the numbers above. AGW signal is at least 8 times (would be more perhaps 10 times - 3W/m2 - if we removed temporary effects of aerosols) stronger than "recovery from LIA" signal.
If LIA was so "dramatically cold" according to legendary tales, and natural cycles are to blame for GW we're experiencing according to the deniers, then the numbers above tell a scary story: the AGW is already 10 times stronger than "LIA recovery", although it did not reach equilibrium T yet. Wait for our childern to experience equilibium conditions, and it grows stronger and stronger as we keep burning FF.
-
scaddenp at 13:50 PM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
Sigh, this is about difference between precision and accuracy. Precision is 0.01, accuracy 0.2. The question around basis, calibration have been around for a while. Good article here about it and what it does or doesnt matter. When looking for a forcing on climate, then what matters is the change, rather than absolute value.
If you get your information from appinsys and the badly named "friends of science" you will never want for moonshine.
-
nigelj at 13:18 PM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
Tom13 @2
I don't think the solar irradiance data would be in the margin of error or it wouldn't even get published would it?
However I recall reading that the data before 2002 is ground measured, and so accuracy is just very average, but since 2002 it is satellite based and very accurate indeed, with a very small margin of error as below. So falling solar irradiance since 2002 does seem to coincide with sharply rising temperatures over the last couple of years at least.
-
nigelj at 13:06 PM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
The links at post 2 don't work properly. They go back to this page, but copying and pasting them works ok.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed
-
DrivingBy at 12:27 PM on 1 August 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
"The data was adjusted, so it's all a giant conspiracy to make it look like it's warming!!!"
The raw, unadjusted data show more warming.
""The data is all fake, it's all a giant conspiracy to make it look like it's warming!!!"
If all of the data is fake (odd that the Great Conspiracy would have started in England in the 19th century), how do you know it's not warming?
"You're a Globalist!!!"
Debating a troll, denier or idiot is like wrestling with a pig.
-
DrivingBy at 12:16 PM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
People will believe what they want to believe, and then find or absorb reasons or (more often) things that sound like reasons to make themselves comfortable. We all do this in one realm or another.
-
scaddenp at 10:44 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mike, call me completely unconvinced. We use a number of very complex instruments. Over the years, both accuracy and precision have improved even though the fundimental measurement has not. This is due to ever increasing complexity of processing and correction between raw detection and reported result.
Modern seismic processing has also become increasingly complex. Talk about torturing the data. Dont tell an oil explorer that the uncertainty in the depth to a reflector has increased because all that fancy processing makes errors more likely. Funnily enough scientists actually test this stuff and publish the methodology for everyone to examine.
On the other side, faced with an unappealing set of data, instead of finding fault with the methodology and publishing alternatives, all we find is dark mutterings about scientists motives and accusation of manipulating the data, which shows a laughable ignorance about science, scientists and science funding. Since UHI and SST adjustment corrections (the biggest adjustment to the global surface temperature recored) reduce the warming trend, if scientists are trying to defraud the public, they are making a rotten job of it.
The graphs on the advanced tab also show that adjustments are tiny compared to trend. Are you actually seriously suggesting there is a chance that surface temperatures are not actually warming? Ice melt and sea level rise are also somehow an artifact?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:13 AM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
JohnthePainter@1
By zooming in on the page then scrolling sideways you can see that average for 1998 is the dot above the orange line.
The hashes on the x-axis are the start of year. And the dots are the annual average shown in the middle of the year. This presention may be confusing to look at, but it is necessary when different averages like monthly, annual, or multi-year are being presented on the same chart.
-
Tom13 at 08:26 AM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
A couple of points regarding the Solar irradiance chart. Comparing the High 1362.2 vs the low of 1360.6 is a drop of only .1174%. Comparing the average at the start of the chart (circa 1950) is 1361.4 vs 1361.2 is only a .01469% drop. Isnt the change well below the measurement error range?
The time span is relatively short, The threecharts below covering the period circa 1800-2010 probably give a better perspective.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image017.gif
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5784/22170076646_a855617076_o.jpg
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened long link.
[PS] Fixed link
[TD] True solar irradiance graphs, with their sources, are in this post.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:22 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
MIke Evershed @ 435: "My point as someone who is scientifically trained is that the more adjustments we make and the more data transformations we perform the greater the risk we run of making errors."
Well, the way to deal with that scientifically is to read the papers that describe the adjustments and transformations, and why they were done the way that they were, and what evidence was presented to support their use.
If you discover a questionable adjustment, and can demonstrate that a different - and equally reasonable - alternate approach provides a significantly different output that affects the conclusions, then point it out. If all you have is "there might be an error, but I don't know where", then all you have is an argument from incredulity. A "greater risk" of making an error does not meant that there is one. (Note: "making an error" is not the same thing as "not everything is known". Knowledge is always incomplete.)
...and anything I've seen presented at WUWT or similar "skeptic" blogs fails the "and equally reasonable" test, because they invariably involve explanations that require overthrowing major fundamentals of physics, cherry-picked data, improper statistical analysis, flawed logic, etc. There is your source of errors.
-
michael sweet at 07:15 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Zeke Hausfather, one of the scientists on the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature (funded by the Koch brothers) wrote a detailed discussion of corrections on Carbon Brief. I like his writings since he is obviously very familiar with the data since he publishes on it, he works for skeptics so it is difficult to see him as part of a conspiracy on AGW and his articles are easy to read. You can Google his publications to get peer reviewed discussions of corrections.
Others will give you better references than me so I will probably not post again. Read less "skeptical" material if you want to be informed, WUWT is especially bad.
-
johnthepainter at 07:12 AM on 1 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
There's no doubt about the overall argument Dana presents, but the first graph contradicts his claim that "[i]n 1998, there was also more solar energy reaching Earth than there has been in 2017." At least to my aging eyes, 1997 (when the El Niño first appeared) and 1998 are plotted as the two lowest points in the 1990-2000 period, both well below the 2017 point.
-
MA Rodger at 05:24 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Rob Honeycutt @438,
Additional to your points gleened from "borish Bob Tisdale," it should be mentioned that the adjusted global land surface air temperature anomalies over their full record do result in increased linear trends relative to their 'raw data' trends but only when calculated over the full record (Bob's figure 1) and importantly all these adjustments that are global in land coverage (note CRUTem4 is a long way from global in land coverage and Bob Tisdale likely misrepresents the raw data it uses); these global land records provide adjusted results that are consistent. Given the adjustment methods are so different, that they give consistent result suggests Mike Evershod's specific worry about errors ("the more adjustments we make and the more data transformations we perform the greater the risk we run of making errors") is unfounded.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:40 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
And, relative to the Bob Tisdale article you referenced...
1) I congradulate you if you can actually get through reading an entire Tisdale article. He's a borish and convoluted writer, at best. Great reading if your purpose is putting yourself to sleep.
2) Most of the charts he's presenting actually support the fact that, for the modern era (post-1960), adjustments do not have a substantive effect on the conclusions of the land data.
3) The bigger challenges are with older sea surface data where methods of collecting the data changed over time. Those adjustments have resulted in lowering the long term temperature trend relative to raw data.
4) I definitely do not understand your rationale on confirmation bias. There are multiple groups processing the data and they're, essentially, ending with results that are in agreement. If there were a significant bias being introduced you'd expect that to be evident across multiple groups. The idea that all the groups could have the same bias, even though they're using different methods, seems extremely unlikely.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:26 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mike @435... I'd suggest taking everything at WUWT with a large dose of salt. Anthony's only litmus test for posting articles on his site is whether he thinks it casts doubt on climate science, without any for validation or review of the materials. You really have to dig in to anything you read on that site. (And that's not to say you shouldn't dig in to materials posted here, but SkS takes on more of a review process behind the scenes for the articles posted here.)
-
Tom Curtis at 03:24 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mike Evershed @435, your comment exhibits a gross misunderstanding. The various versions of GISTEMP LOTI (for example) do not apply additional adjustments on to already adjusted data. Rather, they apply refined versions of existing adjustments to the raw data. A classic example of this is the switch from switch to using night light data to determine urban areas inorder to apply the Urban Heat Island (UHI) adjustment.
If you adjust for the UHI using one method, and then start adjusting it by another method, there is no a priori reason to think that the second method will be worse than the former method. Indeed, given that the second method is based on improved statistical analyses of the effect, or improved subsidiary data (eg, night lights), it is likely that the second method will improve on the first.
Your further assumption that any adjustment will probably be worse than data known to be contaminated by extraneous effects (time of observation, station moves, etc) is also (to put it very kindly) dubious.
Finally, I am interested in your opinion of orbital decay adjustments to satellite temperature data. Is it your opinion that satellite temperature products should just show the unadjusted data as per the top panel of the following graph?
And if not, how are we to believe you objections to adjustments to the surface temperature data are principled rather than opportunistic?
-
Mike Evershed at 02:14 AM on 1 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Thanks to moderator TD, Scaddenp, and Michael Sweet for replies. I have looked up moderator TD's references. But the problem I have is not whether individual adjustments, or homogenisation techniques are reasonable. Nor do I worry that there has been fraud on the part of climate scientists (though I suppose that is possible - scientists being human). Nor do i think that reverting to raw data would be better. My point as someone who is scientifically trained is that the more adjustments we make and the more data transformations we perform the greater the risk we run of making errors. Also, and more seriously, the more choices we make about which adjustments to apply, and how to apply them, we increase the risk of something called "confirmation bias". (The basic idea of confirmation bias is well known and adequately described in wikipedia - so I hope I may be excused providing a reference). So for me the most important point made in the replies is Michael Sweet's: i.e. that the adjustments of the old records have resulted in "a substantial lowering of the amount of warming." Does anyone reading this know where I can find the published scientific data on this - particularly in the surface air temperature? I have seen claims made both ways: leaving Humlim aside I have also seen this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/24/updated-do-the-adjustments-to-land-surface-temperature-data-increase-the-reported-global-warming-rate/
Moderator Response:[TD] You have been pointed to graphs of raw versus adjusted temperatures multiple times and claim to have read them, yet now ask for a pointer to that information.
-
Haze at 23:01 PM on 31 July 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
Tomorrow The Australian will be publishing a story about changes the Bureau of Meteorolgy has made to temperature records The opening para reads: "The Bureau of Meteorology has orf]dered a full scale review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering wtth cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations".
Try as you might Skeptical Science does not have the fire power to effectively repudiate these claims and as is often the case, perception is reality.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
michael sweet at 22:12 PM on 31 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mie Evershod,
Are you aware that the adustments of the old records have resulted in a substantial lowering of the amount of warming measured? Any uncertaity introduced by the adustments have to be in the direction of increased warming, not decreased warming. That means the problem would be greater than determined using the adjusted data. Humlum and others claim that they do not trust the adjustments but then refuse to use the unadjusted data for analysis because it shows a greater problem. That is contradictory and hypocritical.
The unadjusted data are still available for use by anyone who wants to use bad data. (link to Guardian article comparing adjusted and unadjusted data). If you do not trust the adjustments go for it with the old data.
-
scaddenp at 20:49 PM on 31 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Let me be a little more specific. If, over time, a station changes the Time of Day for reading, this produces a well documented change to the temperature average. Given that there is a well researched methodology for correcting a temperature measured with one ToD to another basis, which is going to be the more reliable dataset - the uncorrected station record with different countries using different practises in different periods? Or the one with every station corrected to the same basis? Likewise, some stations become surrounded by urban areas with again, a well-documented increase in temperature from the urban effect not a climatological one. Is the record with an uncorrected mix of rural and urban stations, a more certain estimate of climate than one in which the urban effect has been removed by cross-pairing with rural stations?
-
scaddenp at 20:33 PM on 31 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Okay, noone is doubting that error bars on temperatures increase the further back you go - I hope you have seen the intermediate and advanced tab - but that does not really give you much uncertainty in the warming trend. Furthermore, cleaning reduces the errors. And frankly, it is cleaning the lens. There is no pre-conceived believe in the what unadjusted temperature should look like. The methodologies for sharpening the record are very well documented. Which corrections or methodology do you believe would bias the corrections one way or other, and why? No hand-wavy answers please.
-
Mike Evershed at 19:48 PM on 31 July 2017Temp record is unreliable
Hi Scaddenp (re post 429) sorry for the delay (unfortunately I'm still working). The uncertainty arises from the issue whether the adjusted baseline temmperature data for (say) 100 years ago is reliable. With modern data we have a much better chance of making resaonable adjustments (we've still got the equipment, we can be more certain of field conditions etc). But adjustments to very old data by their nature must be more uncertain. And the correct analogy is not "cleaning the lenses on your camera" but "touching up your picture to show what you believe it would have shown had the camera lens not been dirty". That is a much more uncertain business.
Moderator Response:[TD] In addition to the two links I gave you earlier, see the post by Scott Johnson. And a post by Dana. Tom Curtis informed you that many of the "adjustments" are not to individual records, but to the indices by adding vastly more stations. That type of adjustment does not rely on any of the factors you now are complaining about. As Scaddenp requested, be specific in your questions and objections, responding specifically to the info people are providing you with. They are responding specifically to your specific claims, and you must return the favor. Else you are merely sloganeering, which is not welcome on this site.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:24 AM on 31 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) all need to be the measures of acceptability of actions by every leader (in government or business) everywhere on this planet.
Any "Winner/Leader" in the games people play who tries to implement action plans contrary to achieving any of those goals needs to deliver the substantive rational evidence justifying the 'improvement of the existing very substantially justified goal(s)' as the Good Reason for what they want to do. If they simply pursue creating perceptions of popular support for what they want to get away with through misleading marketing Poor Excuses or appeals to greed, selfishness and tribal superiority and related intolerance of "Others not like the Tribe", they need to be internationally declared to be people who are well aware that they are acting in ways that are a threat to others, particularly to the future of humanity (they need to be grouped in with the likes of Assad in Syria and Kim in N. Korea and treated similarly)
That said, there is going to be a global curtailing of fossil fuel burning, meaning there will still be some burning done. So, globally there should be the understanding, and the will, among the majority of the "Winners" to ensure that benefits obtained from future burning of fossil fuels benefits the least fortunate in ways that sustainably improve their lives in the direction of the SDGs. Another way to say that is that already more fortunate people who "want" to continue to do things that require the burning of fossil fuels get no personal net-benefit from that activity, fees for doing it cost them and are used to help the least fortunate (this already is established and is complained about by people ranting that the Kyoto and Paris deals are wealth grabs from the more fortunate without admitting that the wealth transfer should come more from the more fortunate who want to continue doing things associated with burning fossil fuels).
That means the admission by the majority of the "Winners" that the way the games have been played must be changed dramatically, that some of them deserve to be "Losers". There is more than enough wealth in the world to ensure that nobody suffers a brutal short existence. Corrections that deliver wealth transfer from the "Winners" who deserve to be "Losers" are part of the required change.
The belief that the current "winners" deserve what they have gotten away with developing to date is a 'false idol' piece of dogma that has to fall. Perceptions of prosperity, superiority or opportunity that are inconsistent with achieving the SDGs are the result of development in the wrong direction and clearly should not be protected or maintained as things get corrected.
Another dogma that clearly needs to be curtailed is the belief that 'more freedom for people to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please will develop a decent result' (and that includes people giving up on demands of certainty since certainty is only available through Dogmatic belief).
Increased awareness and better understanding has to rule the actions of the competitors in the games people play. And the rules of the games should only be changed by independently verifiable New Awareness and Improved Understanding, not by temporary regional popularity or profitability (those preceptions of "winning" clearly can be created unjustifiably to the detriment of the future of humanity).
-
DPiepgrass at 01:18 AM on 31 July 2017It's internal variability
Dear webmaster, wowzers, I think the CSS needs tweaking to keep image widths under control.
And this rebuttal could be improved by explaining what natural internal variability means. Something involving the law of conservation of energy - internal variability cannot create heat magically, it has to come from somewhere.
Moderator Response:[JH] Commenters are responsible for keeping the widths of the graphics they insert into a comment to 450 pixels or less. Please do so in the future.
[BW] Regarding the definition of "internal variability" (and many other terms): we actually have an active glossary based on the AR4 definitions which pop-up in the right-hand margin of the screen when you hover the cursor over a thinly underlined term. The glossary's functionality is described here.
-
DPiepgrass at 01:07 AM on 31 July 2017It's internal variability
An obvious source of internal variability should be heat entering or leaving the ocean. But the way this article is phrased doesn't work for me:
even if there were a period of predominantly positive PDO over the long-term, the oceans would cool as a consequence of the transfer of heat to the overlying air. That is not the case: the oceans are warming as well.
Um... while the oceans as a whole would have to cool, the sea surface would have to warm up substantially in order to transfer lots of heat to the air (and in order to warm up substantially, I suppose there would have to be reduced circulation with cold deeper waters). Since most of our ocean sensors are on the surface, and "ocean temperature" is often used as shorthand for "ocean surface temperature", it seems to me that we should see the oceans warming at least as fast as the land, if internal ocean variability could explain global warming. The temperature record tells a quite different story:
Moderator Response:[JH] Graphic resized to conform with posting guidance:
The image must be no wider than 450 pixels.
This guidance is shown at the bottom of the Comments Policy.
-
ubrew12 at 00:09 AM on 31 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
The New York Times has a Sunday editorial 'When Life on Earth Was Nearly Extinguished', which ends with a quote from paleoclimatologist Lee Kump: "The rate at which we’re injecting CO2 into the atmosphere today, according to our best estimates, is 10 times faster than it was during the End-Permian. And rates matter. So today we’re creating a very difficult environment for life to adapt, and we’re imposing that change maybe 10 times faster than the worst events in earth’s history."
-
chriskoz at 18:03 PM on 30 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
I note the other AGU pize this year:
Climate Communication Prize
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Researchand want to congratulate Dr Rahmstorf. He's indeed not only the world class oceanographer but also one of the best communicators. His articles on realclimate are not only informative but very clear and easy to follow, with all references available if you want to follow upthe details which often do. A benchmark of science communication to popular audience. Well done Stefan and please keep it up!
-
chriskoz at 17:52 PM on 30 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
What Swayseeker@4 sais is simply nonsense.
He wants to dig out million years old carbon (in form of gas from fracking or other, it dodes not matter) and purposely burn it in hope of helping shift some carbon from atmosphere to biosphere.
The obvious problem is that this experiment does not and cannot remove any carbon from biosphere/atmosphere circulation but does the exact opposite: adds even more old carbon that will be eventually redistributed evenly into surface reservoirs and increase CO2 in the atmosphere. And all of that for just nothing. While the goal of burning FF are to increase the among of energy available to humans to do useful works, which is something - a short term or immediate gain for which we pay long term price. The only solution to curb that price is to keep FF in the ground. Any solution involving burning FF (especially wasteful burning) only increases the problem.
BTW there are other methods for seeding rains that do not involve wasteful FF burning.
-
scaddenp at 14:01 PM on 30 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
Not like right-wing policy makers to be terribly interested in the poor.
-
nigelj at 13:51 PM on 30 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #30
Africa has a lot of poor people, but has great solar and wind power potential. Both are cost competitive with coal, or very close to it, so to claim renewable energy would hurt the poor is just misleading right wing concern trolling nonsense.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:30 AM on 29 July 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Well, the first thing I noticed about idliedtke's post is that there is a complete ignorance of the meaning of "BP" in the graphic in question. That's "Before Present", where "Present" is the standard geological 1950. So the graph ends in 1950. There is the phrase "mid-20th century" in the caption, which where I come from also means some time around 1950.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 29 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
OPOF @98
Thank's for the details. I thought I had read something like that. Those high fructose corn syrup sugars are also particularly bad for the health. It's all the money influence in politics problem again.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 29 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
Swayseeker @4
Interesting idea. However most of the fracking In America is not in deserts, apart from a little in southern california and around there. The fracking and potential fracking shales are mainly in green and leafy rural America, around North dakota, down near texas and the states around there, and over on the north east coast up near New York and Washington.
However more trees is always a good idea, but waiting for gas flares to lead to more rain encouraging a few more trees sounds a weak process. You would need to also plant the trees wouldnt you? This requires a planned, comprehensive strategy to combat climate change, the very thing Trump and the Red States have desperately been trying to destroy.
-
Daniel Bailey at 05:14 AM on 29 July 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Right here:
And Here:
"It is natural for climate to change as it has for millions of years"
So many fallacies, so little time...
FYI, the Earth's climate only changes in response to warming or cooling forcings. No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
And this gem:
"There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth's record hot streak is natural"
Lol. Let's see what else you got:
"The theory of global warming is completely debunked by this chart"
Nope. You smear the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Indeed:
Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:
1. Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.
2. Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.
3. After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data. Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by collecting more data to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern. If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one. In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. (That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method. A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion - a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.)
5. If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.
6. A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory. Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.For a good discussion of science terminology (especially for the "Evidence, not Proof" bit), see here.
FYI: Anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a hypothesis. It is a robust theory, referred to as "settled fact" by scientists.
Per the National Academies of Science, science advisors to Congress and the Office of the Presidency since Lincoln, in their 2010 publication Advancing The Science Of Climate Change (p. 22):
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from page 22.
"Settled facts"... Just rollsssss off the tongue...
Back to you. Be warned, I'm just getting warmed up.
-
ldliedtke at 03:48 AM on 29 July 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
The Holocene Temperature Variations chart included in this article clearly confirms Ivar Giaver's conclusions and debunks the authors claim. The average temperature over the last 6000 years has been in a gradual decline and has not varied more than 0.5 degrees Celcius. Where is the Global warming? It is natural for climate to change as it has for millions of years. The theory of global warming is completely debunked by this chart. In addition, recent revelations about NOAA temperature measurements on a global scale show that they have been artificially adding to the temperatures recorded to show a warming trend. It appears they have been averaging the temperatures up to prove this theory.
Moderator Response:[TD] There is an arrow pointing to 2004. And there is a small graph embedded in the top right of that graph, magnifying the recent data.
[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:52 AM on 29 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
nigelj,
There is a powerful political reason for the scientifically questionable and socially unethical "corn ethanol" promotion program. A massive part of the USA economy is based on the growth and diverse uses of corn materials. That government subsidized "corn" industry has a big lobby group thta is a powerful influence on all matters related to corn, including mis-information campaigns to protect the corn-derived sugars industry as well as the promotion of a 'new subsidized use of corn - ethanol producton'.
-
Swayseeker at 22:25 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
President Trump seems set on saving the coal and oil and gas industries and although I am a fan of renewables, if fracking, etc, is going to be done anyway I can see a way to offset carbon dioxide formed. Offset CO2 caused by oil and gas burning, flaring, etc, by producing rain with a "rain enhancement gas grid" so that trees can be grown in deserts and other places. The trees will take carbon dioxide out of the air:
People have been complaining about fracking, but I can see a possible benefit if it is occurring anyway. When the methane gas in natural gas is burned it produces water vapour. Methane is the main constituent of natural gas.
CH4+2O2 gives CO2+2H20. Now convectional rain can be brought about merely by having a piece of darker ground heating up more than surrounding lighter coloured ground (urban heat island, etc). Why not encourage fracking companies to burn the waste gas in long pipes with lots of holes in to form a sort of huge grid with thousands of flames coming out?
This will heat and humidify a large volume of air and could cause convectional rain if relative humidity is high (relative humidity usually increases when air gets colder at night). More trees could be grown with more rain (perhaps in deserts) to offset carbon dioxide made from the "rain enhancement gas grid". Fires could be reduced by use of the grid. One could also have a "rain enhancement steam grid, where pipes carry steam that is let out of holes in the pipe grid (steam generated with solar energy or gas, etc).Gasification of coal produces hydrogen and methane and both could be used for the grids.
-
nigelj at 20:48 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Jgfnld @96
Ok fair enough. I appreciate your explanation.
Just putting eugenics aside, you noted the following (and I don't think its off topic).
"In climate science, it would correspond to if the ultra-greens were able to pass some extreme legislation based on an error in extrapolating climate research. For example, let's say the worst case scenarios we have recently seen in the NY Times gained high public traction. It is easily possible to imagine the public to pressure politicians to pass legislation that "seems" sensible but has only minimal scientific support. Or, as actually happened, recall the great oil embargo fears of the 70s. Corn-based ethanol for cars is indeed a good example of fear-based legislation with only minimal scientific support and "consensus"."
Just a few random thoughts, as it got my attention. I gather you mean the Wells scaremongering article about some doomsday scenario of run away climate change, turing earth into something ilke Venus? I have just been reading this myself recently, just briefly, and some commentary on it. I feel climate change needs more urgency of language, but this doomsday stuff is a step much too far. I actually don't think the public would buy into it, as even the dumbest person would realise it's a very low probability scenario (incredibly scientifically low). Its treating adults like children, and they are unlikely to take it seriously or be moved. It wont convince denialists, in my opinion anyway.
But I agree with your point about how some scary, exaggerated stuff does catch on with the public, or politicians, or both . It seems hard to predict which will, and not much logic to it.
We had a curious reaction to the oil embargo of the late 1970s. The government went into panic mode with "carless days" and building synthetic petrol plants! The public were less worried, as it was obviously political and thus unlikely to last.
Corn ethanol always seemed nonsensical to me. Biofuels of that type using crops seem like a dead end to me and totally impractical. But I thought the corn ethanol thing was more driven by farmers lobbying government for subsidies or something?
I have seen promising experiments converting waste and algae or something into biofuels.
But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. A few mistaken decisions are inevitable. with this whole climate issue and they can only be minimised.
-
jgnfld at 20:10 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Nor was I was not disagreeing with you. Simply elaborating on specific parts of the history of eugenics that denier types gloss over or completely ignore. But OK.
The real point is that eugenics really does not provide a great example of a wrong scientific consensus among basic researchers in the field. Eugenics may, however, provide a good example of why we have a large program in the marginal area (w.r.t. climate amelioration, anyway) of corn-based ethanol. Further history than that probably is getting well off topic, anyway.
-
Rob Painting at 19:41 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
Well done, Kevin! Thoroughly deserved.
-
nigelj at 19:03 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
And congrats to Kevin Trenberth of course. Well deserved.
-
scaddenp at 18:58 PM on 28 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #29
Well spotted Lachlan - the graph is mislabelled in this article. The graph comes from here where it clearly states that the height of bars is the anomaly from the 20th Century average, not the a 1980-2010 average. Ie the same baseline as the other 2 graphs on this page.
-
wettercafe at 18:58 PM on 28 July 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
are you so called alarmists with no climatologie background?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Read and comply with the comments policy if you want to make points here.
-
nigelj at 18:51 PM on 28 July 2017A profile of award-winning climate scientist Kevin Trenberth
A huge gulf is growing in America between people like Trenberth and Trump. Science versus gut instincts, ideology, guesswork, summed up as "truthiness" .
-
nigelj at 17:42 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
Jgnfld@94
Thank's for your comments.
I'm aware America promoted odious practices like forced sterilisation, as in my comments further above. I assume you scanned through previous comments, always a wise thing to do.
I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything, if you read my comments.
I find your tone agressive, unfriendly, and patronising and have done nothing to deserve it. Some people on this website should take a course in basic communication skills. I won't be continuing this discussion.
-
jgnfld at 16:01 PM on 28 July 2017Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump
@93
Eugenics, as practiced in the US and elsewhere was most definitely NOT "controlled breeding". It was uncontrolled culling. That is, in practice it was used to sterilize "undesireables" who were already in the population and to keep out any "undesireables" who might try to immigrate into the population.
There were--believe it or not--"Better Baby" contests, but in general there was no intentional selective breeding to develop various human lines together with culling--which would be standard if actual controlled breeding techniques of the time were used--of which I am aware.
Eugenics was extremely popular among the educated classes in the early-to-mid years of the 20th century, there is no doubt about that. It's just that the science and technology of genetics and breeding were never the point of the political legislation. Fears were. And if the science and technology of breeding of the time had actually been applied and tested scientifically, it would have become obvious pretty quickly that "feeble-mindedness", "shiftlessness", "criminal propensities", the vast majority of "disabilities" and the like were not traits amenable to much change through selective breeding. But this never occurred as basic science research was never the point.
There are behavioral propensities that are amenable to selective pressure. Certainly in domestic animals various behaviors have been successfully selected for. But "criminality", say, isn't one of them. Aggressiveness/reactivity might be as one example--certainly is in some dog lines. But how the dog is brought up decides whether the aggressiveness/reactivity is "criminal" or not.
-
Ger at 15:48 PM on 28 July 2017Trump pulled out the oil industry playbook and players for Paris
Is there still the same (oil & gas) economy when Earth was 0.5 C cooler? Costs have rissen, quality of gas,oil & coal has fallen, operating conditions detoriated --> energy price went up. Will we accept the same economy when Earth is 1.5 C hotter, with prices close or above the values in 2008? Don't think so. Prices collapsed and now we buy (much worser quality, higher processing cost) oil for about half the price.
Any use of some old scenario pulled out of a hat ain't gonna work. The state of the economy has changed with the temperature in a not so simple way.
-
Lachlan at 15:42 PM on 28 July 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #29
The third graph (monthly anomalies) in the lead story looks wrong.
The graph claims to show the excess over the mean for the period 1980-2010, but only one point is reported as being below that mean. The mean appears to be offset by about 0.4 degrees.
Was a different baseline used? This graph exagerates warming, giving fuel to those calling scientists "alarmists". Could an expert please fix it?
Prev 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 Next
