Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Next
Comments 18351 to 18400:
-
nigelj at 09:04 AM on 3 August 2017Explainer: California’s new ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme to cut emissions
I tend to echo comments in 1 above.
California's efforts to cut emissions should be applauded of course. I think they are also correct to have a mix of policies aimed at this.
However I still have lingering doubts about emissions trading schemes. They make good theoretical sense of course, and worked for sulphate problems several years ago, but seem to have a history of political meddling relating to carbon emissions. This has sometimes lead to tradable credits dropping in value and becoming useless, and the whole scheme is based on these tradable credits having the exact right value.
The following article is a good critique and also promotes a revenue neutral carbon tax as being less susceptible to manipulation.
However Europe has had some problems with cap and trade, but also some reasonable results as well, so its not a simple thing.
However whatever system is used, for it to work it needs to be open, transparent, and easy to scrutinies any manipulation. Perhaps any cap and trading or carbon tax scheme should be run by a non partisan independent body to reduce politicans doing dubious politically motivated favours for preferred industries etc.
-
John S at 08:19 AM on 3 August 2017Explainer: California’s new ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme to cut emissions
It’s good that California affirmatively resolved the uncertainty as to whether its carbon pricing would continue past 2020. At the same time it’s a disappointment they couldn’t do better. It was only last year, as reported by your Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian, that California passed AJR 43, urging the national government to pass a revenue neutral carbon tax.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/29/california-has-urged-president-obama-and-congress-to-tax-carbon .
And, earlier this year, there were reports that, under SB 775, CA was about to revolutionize climate policy by replacing cap-and-trade with something much better, closer to fee and dividend, as advocated for many years by James Hansen, Katherine Hayhoe and Citizens Climate Lobby, and, more recently, by the Climate Leadership Council.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade
Why would this have been so much better?
The key point is a commitment to increase carbon prices predictability, in perpetuity (in other words until they get the job done of eliminating fossil fuel burning). This means all (or most, see below re environmental justice), of the revenue must be given back to citizens as dividends; otherwise taxpayers, and the economy, will not tolerate the extra taxes.
To be clear, every Californian would have received rising dividends compensating for the drain on their budgets from rising prices.
The big hit, the home run, as you baseball fans would say, is that predictably ever-rising fossil fuel prices would energize innovation and increase the net present value, hence feasibility and chance of success, of all long-lead-time and long-life projects, e.g. changing some of your old steam district heating systems to modern low temperature hot water systems, thereby enabling use of non-fossil sources, building retro-fits and strategic changes in transportation and industry.
It would protect trade exposed industries and prevent “leakage” by border-adjustment taxes (BAT’s). This is much more selective than giving away allowances holus bolus, which is typical in cap-and-trade schemes, such as ours here in Ontario. (Just for fun, some of us are imagining Trump’s reaction if Canada enacts wide-ranging BAT’s against the US next year because we will have a national carbon price and the US probably won’t.)
SB 775 would not have allowed off-sets. I could argue both sides of that one, but would have thought the environmental justice groups would fight for it, having seen some of the terrible industrial urban landscapes down there. But these were the same people who sank a revenue neutral carbon tax proposal in Washington state, hence some special effort to help vulnerable communities would have been wise (better than grandiose plans for bullet trains anyway.)
Perhaps the main opportunity lost, as expressed by David Victor in the referenced article, is the positive, leadership impact on the rest of the word – because, yes, we were watching. -
One Planet Only Forever at 08:07 AM on 3 August 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
Haze@#4,
I would argue that the following is a better understanding of the claim that Perception is Reality:
What a person wants to believe is what they will believe and claim to be reality. If there is actual evidence/better understanding that contradicts their belief and they resist better understanding the matter then they are in deliberate Denial.
Everyone cannot be free to believe whatever they want when there is independently verifiable evidence/experience related to the matter. Spiritual beliefs are one of the few items where everyone truly can be equally correct while having seemingly inconsistent beliefs (no matter how numerous or powerful a spiritual group of people claiming that their way of believing is the only correct one has become).
-
scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 3 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
And further to my earlier comment, there is plenty of people out there with hostile views and, for fossil fuel companies where proposed climate action is a threat to shareholder value, the funds and scientific muscle to create their own homogenized temperature series. They could also challenge the papers that details the homogenization methods if they could find errors. The lack of any such papers would suggest that noone has found a real problem. I cant imagine Exxonmobile pushing a paper "the scientists were right" if they did such a study (and we know their scientists have looked). All we get is innuendo which sits fine for an audience with their own ideological biases seem to have shut down their critical faculties if they ever had them.
-
kmoyd at 01:30 AM on 3 August 2017Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
is there any way to tell when during the increasing temperature rise the extinctions started. I'm concerned deniers will use the fact that the temperature rise was 6 degrees while our business-as-usual estimate is "only" 4.2 degrees means we don't have to worry.
-
Eclectic at 21:38 PM on 2 August 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
Haze @#4 ,
polar ice is melting away at 100's of Gigatons per year; temperate-zone glaciers are disappearing rapidly; sea levels are rising ever faster; global surface temperatures are setting new highs; and plants and animals are altering their behaviour accordingly.
That is reality.
Those who think "reality" exists only in their own minds — are, by definition, insane. They can attempt to resist reality for a while, but not in the long term.
-
MA Rodger at 21:15 PM on 2 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
Mike Evershed @443.
Your quote concerns confirmation bias generally and is not specific to the scientific process. Nickerson (1998) 'Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises' does address things scientific (no mention of climatology) and a little more fully than he does witch-hunting. As I see this as off-topic, I will be brief.
The accounts given of Conservatism among scientists, Theory persistence, Overconfidence and Unity in science I would suggest apply to the AGW denialists rather than the AGW proponents. Science works hard to root out Confirmation Bias. I see no difficulty in taking on board an aberrant theory that would disprove AGW, but only if it has merit. AGW denialists cannot say the same for the science they attempt to overturn, science that does have merit. Yet they do have a role in science (but not in public), using their denialist viewpoint to rattle the cage, but in doing this they have failed to produce any aberrant theories that have any merit, so far.
Note that the examples given by Nickerson are about big issues that make-or break theories. (I should say here that I am not entirely happy with some of his accounts.) As the adjustments to global temperature series we discuss here do not lead to any make-or-break situations, I don't see there is a situation where confirmation bias would begin to operate. But looking from a denialist viewpoint, chipping away at the temperature record does assist the anti-AGW arguments, not least by spreading doubt over the entirety of all temperature records.
-
scaddenp at 19:36 PM on 2 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
It is also extremely hard to understand quite point you are trying to make. It feels like a fairly desparate attempt to find a reason to be doubtful of the temperature record with no actual basis at all. Do you comment on JPL sites about the dark side of the consensus on gravity might result in satellites off course? Or complain that maybe it is okay to build houses on faultlines because after all the geological consensus on earthquakes might be subject to confirmation bias?
-
scaddenp at 17:56 PM on 2 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
"however as all of them subscribe to the consensus view"
Um, this isnt politics. You arrive at a consensus you dont start with one. Also BEST was started by Muller as was skeptical of the record with Koch funding. Anthony Watts said “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” That was until it confirmed the existing temperature records. So definitely not "all of them".
-
Haze at 16:55 PM on 2 August 2017Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records
My apologies I clearly did not make it clear what I was trying to demonstrate. The first part of my post was a cut and paste of the report in The Australian on Monday August 1.
The second partg was attempting, very badly it seems, to point out that despite the best efforts of SkS to disseminate the facts on AGW, it could not match the number of people who would read the piece in The Australian and possibly be influenced by it . As I wrote, perception is reality and for many readers that piece now may well be reality. Donald Trump by withdrawing from Paris has clearly shown just how well perception can serve to change reality.I hope that explains more clearly the rationale for my post and can only apologise once again for my inadequacies
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, please clearly designate direct quotes by explicitly stating and linking to the source and deliniating the material quoted with the use of quotation marks or the blockquote feature. Deliniating quoted material with itlaic font is also acceptable.
-
Mike Evershed at 16:47 PM on 2 August 2017Temp record is unreliable
I am grateful for the thoughtful responses of site participants (posts 436 to 442). Michael Sweets reference to Zeke Hausfather's article was particularly helpful and I'm beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. It looks as though the "denialist" sites are mostly referencing either the land surface air temperature data where revisions to older data do increase the warming trend (but only moderately so) or the modern period adjustments where again they increase the trend (but only slightly so), while sites supporting the consensus focus on the either the sea surface record or the overall record including sea surface temperatures where the adjustments reduce the long term warming trend (and significantly so). As to the questions I have been asked - I don't dispute the climate is warming and I don't think the data adjustments represent fraud - but I am trying to get a handle on how reliable the consensus view is, and on this thread how reliable the warming data is. As to my concern about confirmation bias, I agree that the existence of different groups working on the data problems reduces the risk, however as all of them subscribe to the consensus view, and defend the anthropogenic warming hypothesis the risk of confirmation bias cannot be totally discounted.
To quote an expert in the field: "A great deal of empirical evidence supports the idea that the confirmation bias is extensive and strong and that it appears in many guises. The evidence also supports the view that onceone has taken a position on an issue, one's primary purpose becomes that of defending or justifying that position. This is to say that regardless of whether one's treatment of evidence was evenhanded before the stand was taken, it can become highly biased afterward." http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~mckenzie/nickersonConfirmationBias.pdf. Nickersons discussion of confirmation bias in science at the end is particularly interesting - including the observation that the strength of science lies in vigorous challenge to hypotheses.
Moderator Response:[TD] People who are interested in global temperature look at the temperature of the globe. The whole globe. Land and water. Because that is the definition of "global."
-
nigelj at 12:06 PM on 2 August 2017Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
Changes and problems in global fisheries already happening, due to warming oceans, from research in Nature
science.time.com/2013/05/16/why-warming-oceans-could-mean-dwindling-fish/
Predictions on effects of global warming on fish species, and possible adaptation problems.
-
chriskoz at 11:33 AM on 2 August 2017Underground magma triggered Earth’s worst mass extinction with greenhouse gases
Thanks Howard. While rading it a question of PETM was dorming in my head, until it got answered in the last paragraph.
The evidence points that there is a tipping point in a rate of GHG degassing rate triggered by LIP. Life cannot adapt to the changes too fast, past said tipping point. If we can deduce from said evidence that PETM was not fast enough (i.e. did not reach a tipping point to affect most land forms), then the conclusion is: marine lifeforms will be first to go as the result of AGW. We may be mildly confident that AGW rate is at least as fast as PETM, though it may not have reached the scale of PETM which is another important tipping point not discussed here, but in case the required scale is reached lots of marine species may already be doomed. But to determine the vulnerability land species, a comparison it to end-Permian is required but such comparison is difficult I guess.
-
mpcwatts at 08:19 AM on 2 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Some thoughts on why inaction will produce massive disruption based on the simplest analysis of historical record of climate change. Its a tecky, non - climate scientists view. At ....
http://www.impattern.com/Anthropocene.html
Moderator Response:[PS] fixed link. Please learn how to do this yourself with the link tool in the comment editor.
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 2 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
John S @9
Regarding the John Bates and Karl controvery. The accusations were data fiddling and incorrect process and reported in the daily mail tabloid newspaper.
Karl did nothing wrong. To quote Sheakespeare, much ado about nothing, or in modern terms an empty beat up. Things were all twisted out of context. The temperature adjustments were verified by several independent climate bodies, but the daily mail rant carefully omitted this key fact. The adjustments were also very small, again this was carefully not stated in the daily mail beat up. Bates was also demoted by Karl 2012, so take what you wish from that.
You can get a good picture of it in the following articles
www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
www.businessinsider.com.au/noaa-climate-data-not-faked-2017-2?r=US&IR=T
Regarding the NASA adjustments, refer to the recent article on this website listed in the left hand margin "Explainer. How data adjustments affect the global temperature record"
There are all sorts of adjustments, but the important thing is the big global land ocean trend raw data from 1900 - 2016 has actually been adjusted down. There is a graph in the article.
Regarding average global temperatures, these are based on weather stations all over the planet. NASA use a couple of thousand. Coverage is good overall, but with gaps in central africa, parts of the oceans, and only a few stations in very northern and antarctic regions. Nasa give technical analysis of why this is sufficient for a meaningful average, and this is on their website somewhere.
Just google "images for global weather stations". Here is one I looked at. Im not a climate scientist, just interested in the issues, but its pretty intuitively obvious there are plenty of weather stations over enough of the planet.
Moderator Response:[PS] please put further responses on temperature record on this thread. You can provide a link to your response here.
-
MA Rodger at 05:59 AM on 2 August 20172017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global warming
Ooops.
Continuing from premature submission above.
BEST & HADCRUT do not use the Karl SST data yet the warmth of recent years is still there.
BEST - 2016 +1.06ºC, 2017 +0.96ºC, 2010 +0.79ºC, 2015 +0.76ºC.
HadCRUT - 2016 +0.90ºC, 2017 +0.75ºC, 2015 +0.70ºC, 2010 +0.61ºC.
Even the satellite data of UAH & RSS show 2017 as the 4th hottest start-to-the-year on record (after 2016, 1998 & 2010), this with TLT measurements far more influenced by the El Nino wobbles which boost 1998 and 2010 above 2017. They certainly do not show "a flat line over the period." The video simply has no merit.
-
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.
Prev 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Next
