Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 Next
Comments 31501 to 31550:
-
Quick at 03:58 AM on 8 February 2015CO2 lags temperature
Has this study been debunked on any other thread?
http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-4700320_51443.htm
-
ryland at 03:55 AM on 8 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
JH Fair Comment. I'm not picking holes in the piece per se rather commenting on what, to me, seem rather optimistic hopes that most humans will put self interest anything other than first. And I do stand by my comment that even suggesting it may be too late to avoid unpleasant consequences of higher global temperatures, could well be counterproductive. From his post @11 it seems One Planet Only Forever may be the author of the piece as in that post my belief that self interest comes first for many, or even most, humans. I agree wth the comments of OPOF regarding the antipathy many have to the loss of personal benfits but I would also note that many in the developing world want to get their share of the benefits they consider cheap energy has brought the developed world. This is a continuing refrain at the global meetings discussing climate change and one that is hard to effectively counter.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks for the clarification. The OP is a guest post and its author may not be monitoring this comment thread. That is why I chose to come to her defense in a general sort of way.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:17 AM on 8 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
indus56, Others on this comment string have already shared your concern about the 2 C limit so you are not alone.
Prior to the Copenhagan meeting in 2009 there was a range of 'suggested limits' with a 1.5 C increase being considered to be a target temperature increase limit. That limit seems to have been generally thought to result in reasonable predictability of the regional consequences and reasonably limit the severity of the consequences.
In Copenhagen the global leaders had to admit the science indicated that the lack of reduction of impacts by the 'global most fortunate biggest benefiters from burning of fossil fuels' had made limiting impacts to 1.5 C a pointless objective. Rather than fuel the disingenuous but popular argument that 'its too late so why bother', they set a 2 C limit. In Paris they need to actually state how much hydrocarbon needs to stay in the ground and establish a system that will ensure that the best global energy benefit to humanity is obtained from the limited amount of impact allowed.
There is definitely a need to focus on limiting the human impacts without requiring absolute proof in advance of the exact consequences of not limiting them. A recent article in Nature "Climate policy: Ditch the 2 °C warming goal" presents the case for expanding the focus onto other ways of monitoring human impacts such as warming of the oceans.
It also suggests that clearer global commitments to real actions such as limiting how much buried hydrocarbons can be burned is more meaningful than a global declaration about a limit of impact to a 2 C increase, even if the basis for the limit is a 2 C increase.Essentially, the problem comes down to this. The current global economy has developed vast amounts of undeserved impressions of wealth. It has also made many of the 'most fortunate' addicted to benefiting from the unsustainable and damaging burning. There is tremendous wealth, profitability and popularity opposed to the required change, because many of the current 'most fortunate' are simply undeserving of the type of life they can get away with enjoying and are uwilling to give up any of their potential to enjoy their life in the way they hope to get away with.
I understand that what I have presented is confrontational, especially to those who want to believe that they should not have to give up any personal benefit, enjoyment, convenience, comfort or excess. However, I believe it is one of the best explanations of what can be seen to be going on. And the best actions against that damaging attitude are the continued efforts to improve the collective understanding of what is going on in the hopes that the majority of humanity will actually care about more than just themselves and their 'maximum possible enjoyment of their life any way they can get away with'.
Some people will never be convionced to care. They need to be excluded from any discussions about what needs to be done. They are the ones whose actions need to be 'forced to be changed against their will'.
-
bjchip at 01:42 AM on 8 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
I actively defend the models in a variety of places, and this looks to become a useful addition to the science, but we can't use it while that critique is out there, unanswered.
If Lewis is wrong about the datasets used, wrong about the circularity, then we can use it.
I don't have access to the original paper, I don't know for certain what Lewis is on about in his critique, so I am asking for a little help here...
...because this isn't something I'd want to ask Forster or Marotzke cold.
That'd just be rude.
I think they're probably right and I really want to refer to it, but at the same time I really want to know how to respond to the people who just point at that critique.
I can and will continue to defend the model's quite excellent performance with many other things I have learned from Tamino and at Realclimate and here... but this paper looks real good and it isn't currently usable.
Moderator Response:[DB] "I don't have access to the original paper"
An accessible copy of the full paper can be found here.
-
indus56 at 01:00 AM on 8 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
Am I alone if feeling a slight annoyance that we run the numbers for a 2 degree C limit, but not for, say, one degree? My understanding is that 2 degrees was adopted as a politically pragmatic threshold rather than having any particular scientific significance. What the 2 degree calculations seem to offer us is the illusion that we can burn another 20% of the planet's coal reserves (or oil, in other scenarios) before acting.
-
MA Rodger at 19:33 PM on 7 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
From the posted U-Tube, Kevin Cowtan tells us:-
"Adjusted data do show a little less warming but only about 10% less over the last over tha last 50 years. And remember this is land-only daya. Two-thirds of the planet is ocean which isn't affected by the weather station adjustment. If we consider the whole planet, the NOAA adjustments make only about 3% difference to the amount of warming over the last 50 years."
@23 daveburton tells us he calculates this last 50-year land temperature' figure as 7.5%. It appears there is a level of agreement for the last 50 years and we can move on.
daveburton @23 stresses the 35% figure for the 115-year record. This is far higher than for the last 50-year period. Indeed @23 we are told that a whopping 89% of the global land warming 1900-70 appears only within the adjusted data.
What I therefore find bizarre in this accusation that the adjustments are poorly founded (with heavy hints of conspiracy wafting about to boot) is that climatology has busted a gut trying to explain the early twentieth century temperature record. If the adjustments were as dodgy as suggested by daveburton, why has nobody struggling to explain the adjusted land temperature figures broken ranks and used an alternative adjustment methodology?
I would hazard a guess at least one reason. The early twentieth century SST data would look like they came from a different planet and be very difficult to explain if the NOAA adjustments (and all the others which reach the same conclusion) were truly in gross error.
-
ryland at 18:20 PM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
The chances of the "unburnable" fossil fuels remaining unburnt seem very slim indeed. Can you really imagine the scenario "The new research paints a stark picture of the compromises in fuel use necessary in a climate-constrained world. The researchers say it raises the question of how we divvy up the winners and losers, and that's one we should all now be asking of our policymakers playing out in real life?. Just look at the current geopolitical shennanigans over the price of oil and the resultant exultation from consumers. No wondering about their reaction to cheaper fossil fuel. Now try and imagine the public's reaction to oil at $300 a barrel and a 120% increase in power bills and a serious depletion of government largesse due to lack of revenue in countries affected by restrictions on mining and exporting fossil fuels. I also wonder about the advisability of comments such as that from Professor Watson former IPCC Chair and UK governmemt chief scientific adviser "..the world is now most likely committed to an increase in surface temperature of 3C-5C compared to pre-industrial times." The reaction to that by many may well be one of a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders and an "oh well there's nothing we can do about it now so why change" attitude. This doesn't seem a desirable outcome at all. Instead of dire warnings about burning fossil fuels why not put forward a few positive suggestions for alternatives that do not damage the consumer's hip pocket? If the global public can't be convinced that they will not be worse off, then there is no way the long term exploration for and exploitation of, fossil fuels will be significantly reduced. The author's also state "..the research could feed into negotiations as a starting point for wider conversations about historical responsibility, equity and potential compensation mechanisms". As I mentioned above, just look at the conversations OPEC are currently not having about the price of oil and the impact of their actions on revenue in oil exporting countries like Russia and Venezuela. Realistically, pious hopes that " research could feed into negotiations" may well be just that.
Moderator Response:[JH] An accross-the-board, in-depth analysis of all facets of the energy/climate future of the type that you suggest would require a team of experts to do the work. A summary of the analytic process and its results would result in either a major report, or a book. In other words, you cannot expect a single article to cover all facets of an extremely complex subject.
-
bjchip at 17:46 PM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
Thanks for that OSweetMrMath...
I don't trust climateaudit apart from as a negative indicator, but I have to find actual problems in what they say. The fact that they are publishing to a blog and not submitting a comment to Nature is suspect, but I need to understand how they are wrong if in fact they are wrong. As long as there isn't a detailed takedown of the climateaudit comment the original work remains nullified as an argument.
One error would be this:
But aerosol levels have changed little over the last 35 years
Right... tell it to the Chinese.
But what the heck is this? I don't see circularity here unless Marotzke is diagnosing a term that Forster already included. Which appears to be what is being claimed. The original paper is behind a paywall and that is not working well for us.
Marotzke states that this equation suggests a regression modelAs is now evident, Marotzke’s equation (3) involves regressing ΔT on a linear function of itself. This circularity fundamentally invalidates the regression model assumptions.
I can't begin... even if I had the time. The original paper is needed to address that question.
Moderator Response:[JH] Why is it incumbent on you to find actual problems in what is posted on Climateaudit? When you do have an "actual problem" identified, what do you to with it? I ask the questions because your requests for assistance could be a cover for promoting Climateaudit. Over the years, we have encountered many commenters who are pretending to be something they are not.
I have retracted the above because I have been convinced that bjchip is honestly seeking assistance from us.
-
Tristan at 15:45 PM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
If you remove fossil fuel subsidies, adopt a useful carbon pricing scheme (ie, not an ETS) and subsidise renewable energy to the same tune that fossil fuels were getting, I get the feeling that a lot of that 80% won't be economically appealing.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:33 PM on 7 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
daveburton @24, thankyou for the efforts at digitizing. I notice that while the difference over 115 years between 1900 and 2014 is, by your digitization, 0.3 C, or 35% of the 0.86 C unadjusted increase; the 111 year difference (second value on the graph) is approximately 0.23 C. That represents a 23% reduction in the adjustment. The following value shows an increase in adjustment so the decrease is not monotonic. Surely you are not going to argue that a 23% difference (30% using your preferred method of calculating percentages) is insignificant. If you are not going to make that argument, however, my point about the sensitivity to end points if you do not use the linear trend to calculate the difference is proven. Indeed, it appears that you have added about 30% to the reported adjustment by, what is afterall, an arbitrary choice of endpoint.
My other points remain unaddressed.
-
OSweetMrMath at 12:43 PM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
bjchip,
I read the paper at Nature, and then I read the climateaudit post until I got bored. It didn't seem to be responsive to the basic claims of the paper, just throwing up a bunch of noise leading to a meaningless dismissal of Marotzke. The substance of the criticism isn't much more than the quote, "The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics." which is a good insult but not an informed criticism.
My reason for rejecting climateaudit is that it's inherently untrustworthy, as has been well demonstrated. Nature deserves more credibility a priori than climateaudit ever will.
-
davidsanger at 11:35 AM on 7 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
If one is going to compare adjusted temperature anomalies to unadjusted temperature anomalies, ought not the unadjsuted temperature anomalies be calculated relative to the unadjusted mean temperature? Otherwise you are calculating an anomaly by comparing an unadjusted temperature to an adjusted mean.
Or am I missing something?
-
daveburton at 09:42 AM on 7 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
This is the Excel-generated plot of adj-unadj (adjusted minus unadjusted temperatures) for the 24 years which I digitized.
Because I digitized only 20% of the years it's obviously incomplete, and because the years I digitized aren't quite evenly spaced the horizontal spacing of the plotted points isn't quite right, and because it's manually digitized from a screencap of a graph it's not completely accurate, but it's a better reflection of NOAA's global land surface temperature adjustments than "the difference between raw and final USHCN temperatures" (U.S. only) which Tom Curtis posted:
Moderator Response:[RH] Adjusted image size. Please try to keep images to 500px width.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:02 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
It is important to note that the indicated amount of stuff that can be allowed to be burned was not only based on the dangerously high 2 C temperature increase, it was based on a 50:50 chance of a 2 C increase from the amout of burned stuff.
Structures are not designed with a 50:50 chance of staying up. And vehicle brake systems are not designed to have a 50:50 chance of working when you push the brake pedal. The discussion should be about what is allowed with a 'higher level of certainty that significant problems will not occur'. That would be something better than a 95% level of certainty, something closer to the certainty that human burning of fossil fuels has to be curtailed rapidly in spite of its potential popularity and profitability.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:55 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
One thing that defiintely should be done right now is a global ban on the burning of the petroleum coke waste that is created when poor grade crude like the stuff in the Alberta Oil Sands is upgraded to a refinable material. That stuff is worse than coal and yet wealthy people are able to profit from it being burned.
And one thing that is seldom mentioned is the potential future value of unburned buried hydrocarbons. There is the possibility that in the future, thousands or millions of years from now, there could be a really beneficial use for these resources.
The clear problem is the current marketplace cerated by humans which erroneously relies on popularity and profitability. That system clearly has shown no interest in developing a sutainable better future. The required change of human development will require changes to the motivations of the marketplace. That will only happen through responsible leadership.
Responsible leadership toward a sustainable better future for everyone has clearly been lacking. It has definitely been possible for irresponsible pursuers of what hey want to create popular support for, and increase the profitability of, damaging activity that cannot be sustained.
One effective challenge to every defender of getting away with benefiting from burning buried non-renewable hydrocarbons is to demand proof from them that the future generations clearly benefit from the activity they want to benefit from. Ask them to show what they have done to ensure the future generations will definitely have a better life and prove it will actually benefit distant future generations. Even just ask them waht they think future generations will have to do when the non-renewable resources they want to benefit from burning up become even difficult to benefit from.
-
bjchip at 07:51 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
I have a need for an answer to the attack on the paper from climateaudit.
That relies on SOMEONE someone taking up some defense of the paper from this particular attack and I note that they also attack the peer-review process at Nature. I do not think that ignoring this is going to help.
In calling attention to that attack I *have* to consider that it may even be accurate... any given paper might be in error without throwing any doubt on the overall science. We all take a false position when we pretend to be perfect.
I do NOT not have the tools to determine WTF they are saying and I can't simply "reject" a statistical argument I do not understand.
No matter that I agree with the conclusion of the original paper, I can't use it in argument anywhere if that argument on climateaudit stands unanswered.
What I am asking is that someone who has the tools to understand, read over that attack and respond appropriately, here or elsewhere. Please.
You know who I am and how to reach me. If you have any doubt whatsoever, just e-mail me.
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of "all caps" is akin to shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
knaugle at 06:51 AM on 7 February 2015It hasn't warmed since 1998
May need updating? 2014 now warmest year on record in several temperature databases.
-
Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
Cooper & Wili:
I don’t know how deep sea pressure impacts (possibly limits) thermal expansion, but the temperature certainly does. Some time ago I made this graph showing how 1oC of warming causes more and more expansion as the initial temperature of water rises.
Note how the rate of expansion increases 3-fold from 0oC to 10oC and more than 5-fold from 0oC to 25oC. It’s also worth noting that the heat capacity of water is close to 4.2 J/g/K all the way from 0oC and 100oC, so the energy it takes to heat a certain amount of water by 1oC doesn’t change much with temperature.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
TomR @4... Methane contributions certainly have been considered and are thought they will likely not have a major impact this century.
Peter Sinclair has a very good series of videos with researchers discussing this very issue, called the "Methane Bomb Squad." You should definitely check it out.
-
TomR at 05:48 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
I agree that 2C is way too disastrous. We probably have already crossed it since I don't think the permafrost and methane clathrate contributions have been included although they are virtually certain to have a major impact this century.
At least some carbon appears likely to stay in the ground with New York, Scotland, Wales, and some European countries banning fracking. Also, there has been a major cut-back in exploration for more carbons. Granted, some of the cut-back is due to low oil prices, but I think some is because of the realization by industry that their reserves will be unsellable. The electric power companies are certainly running scared of PV solar. China may have peaked on coal imports. Improved battery technology with the titanium dioxide anode to the lithium ion battery may dramatically cut the cost and eliminate range anxiety. Fossil fuel cars may soon be fossils. Let's do all we can to make it a reality.
-
gregcharles at 05:47 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
I hear the term carbon budget a lot lately, but I don't fully understand how it's calculated. I assume it would be related to climate sensitivity, or actually the climate sensitivity specifically for the effects of doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere on global mean surface temperatures. This is currently estimated to be 1.5C to 4.5C. So to compute a carbon budget, we'd look at current CO2 levels (~400 ppm) and pre-industrial values (~280 ppm), pick a reasonable climate sensitvity value like 3C, and plug them into a formula?
-
Alexandre at 04:19 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
I haven't seen any believable hint that any carbon will stay underground unexplored. Quite the opposite: new frontiers like fracking, Arctic oil, tar sand oil and deepwater drilling suggest that we'll burn even more than all presently known reserves.
I would love to be proven wrong. Please someone help me out here.
-
wili at 04:06 AM on 7 February 2015Katharine Hayhoe's climate elevator pitch
I think people are missing her point (as I hear it, at least).
You can't get people to the science (or Logos and Ethos) if you don't first make some connection on the value/emotional (Pathos) level.
Once people have a reason to care, or perhaps to not feel as threatened, then and in many cases only then will they be able to pay attention to stats like 97% agreement among climate scientists (Authority) and the absorption spectrum of CO2 (Science).
It is easy for most of us to overlook just how powerfully our critical abilities in any situation are tied up to our emotional reactions.
-
wili at 03:56 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
Thanks for the insights, Cooper. I do certainly know that thermal expansion isn't the only contributor to slr, but so far it is the largest single contributor (vs glacier melt, GIS, Antarctica and changes in terrestrial storage). I suppose increased evaporation rates and total humidity in the atmosphere (which is increasing) has to be figured in, too--over the long term, but also as a factor in year-to-year varability.
But I still would have thought that, if more heat has been going into the oceans in the last 15 years than previously, there would be some notable increase in the rate of slr over the same period. I can't imagine that ice sheet loss has been decelerating over the same period in a way that would mask the thermal expansion.
"the land-ice losses and sea-ice losses relative to their absorbed heat-of-fusion; once this ice is gone, that reservoir for absorbing heat and limiting warming simply disappears"
I think this is an important point, and I'm sure someone has figured out exactly (or at least approximately) how much energy has been going in to melting all that ice. It makes me wonder just how fast the Arctic Ocean will heat up once it's (mostly) free of ice and recieving solar radiation 24/7 for weeks.
-
Tom Dayton at 03:17 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
Sir Harry, a professional statistician who has published climate science peer reviewed papers goes by the name Tamino on his blog, which is outstanding.
-
Cooper13 at 03:01 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
@wili:
Actually, the past several decades have indicated sea level rise is substantially faster than the prior 20-30 years. A single decade is difficult to parse out of the data for a longer-term trend, but as I recall, sea levels are going up closer to 3.5mm/yr vs ~2.5mm/yr as the longer-term (early) 20th century trend.
However, overall rise is a combination of land-ice losses and thermal expansion, so overall sea level increases cannot be naively attributed to only ocean warming.
There is no 'deep sea pressure' mechanism that limits thermal expansion due to temperature rises I am aware of; I'd have to look up in a CRC handbook or something to see if there is any substantial variation in the coefficient of thermal expansion for water vs. pressure which might imply 'deep water' warming would have a lower or higher rate of expansion with heating. Nonetheless, any warming increases ocean volume.
That said, one concern I have not seen addressed/discussed is the land-ice losses and sea-ice losses relative to their absorbed heat-of-fusion; once this ice is gone, that reservoir for absorbing heat and limiting warming simply disappears - has anyone calculated how much faster warming might be once a significant portion of this ice warms through that transition temperature? The ratio of ice heat absorption to water warming is (I think) 80 cal/g-degree C; that means the energy to heat up a gram of water 80 degrees is the same as it takes to melt just 1 g of ice into water (or, the same amount of heat will warm the same mass of water 80x more). Once those ice 'heat absorbing' reservoirs are gone, the basic physics demands that overall warming w/o that phase transition will go somewhat faster. It could be an insignificantly small increment, but I have not seen that calculation/estimation.
-
wili at 02:27 AM on 7 February 2015Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says
But since two degrees is way too high, we really don't have any 'budget.' Our carbon 'budget' is way over drawn. Every extra molecule of carbon put in the atmosphere is a molecule that we'll have to figure out how to get back out of the atmosphere as soon as possible (like, yesterday or last century). And then take many more out thereafter. (All of course without using energy that itself burns carbon...)
-
wili at 02:20 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
I'm surprised there wasn't more about volcanic activity here. Surely, a major volcanic eruption (or many minor ones) could temporarily knock global tempuratures outside of the range of model projections. But that wouldn't invalidate the models.
Has there been enough volcanic activity recently for this to be part of the slower rise in the last fifteen years? I would think that some of the slowing in the rate of heating has to do with the human made 'volcano' of aerosols especially from China's rapid industrial expansion.
If the 'missing heat' really all is going into the oceans, shouldn't we have expected a pronounced increase in the rate of sea level rise just from thermal expansion. IIRC, that has not been the case in the last ten years. Or does heating the deep ocean not create as much thermal expansion because of the pressure?
Thanks ahead of time for any help from any direction (except, of course, from denialists) on any of these points.
-
Sir Harry Flashman at 02:04 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
Honestly, I'd be interested in seeing some comment on the claims of flawed statistical methods coming from denier blogs from someone who knows the topic. Not looking to cast any shadows, but those blogs have influence with people and I wonder if ignoring them is always the best way to go.
Moderator Response:[JH] Rest assured that members of the SkS comment team and our regular readers monitor what is being posted on the more prominent websites of Deniersville. When a formal rebuttal is needed, we will do so either by updating an existing, or by posting a new SkS article. In many cases, our reuglar readers (e.g. Tom Curtis. KR, MA Rodger, etc. ) will thoroughly debunk a denier analysis in the comment threads of this website. In other cases, we may reprint a critique originated by another pro-science website such as Tamino's Open Mind.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:44 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
fungelstrumpet @3:
"Though there are signs of desperation. He seems to be linking climate change to a socialist/communist conspiracy."
That has been Monckton's line for at least five years now. Indeed, if anything it represents a toning down of the rhetoric. In his 2009 blurb for Ian Wishart's propaganda piece, Air Con (very well self named), he wrote:
"The UN, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jacques Chirac, and other world government wannabes are plotting to establish nothing less than a global, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship under the pretext that it is necessary to 'Save The Planet'. Ian Wishart's book demonstrates that there is not the slightest scientific reason for the new, quasi-religious belief that The Planet needs Saving. The new religion is merely an excuse for world government. World government will not, repeat not, be democratic government.
"The 'global warming' debate is not really a debate about climatology - it is a debate about freedom. It is the aim of the growing world-government faction amont the international classe politique to take away our hard-won freedom and democracy forever. I commend [Wishart's] book ... . Those who read it will will help to forestall the new Fascists and so to keep us free."
So whereas Monckton formerly described all of us as both (and simultaneiously) communists and fascists, he he toned down to calling us communists and totalitarians. (Don't tell Riddley. I'm sure he would have a fainting fit to think that such abusive language would be used in the climate debate. He also would be forced by his logic to concede that AGW is both real and dangerous.)
I will note as an aside that the way in which large numbers of quite influential members of the anti-climate science brigade take a known conspiracy theorist, and demagogue like Monckton seriously damns their cause far beyond anything I could manage. If they cannot determine that Monckton's thinking is, quite frankly, nuts; and act accordingly, but rather provide a ready conduit for any rubbish he puts out, they have shown themselves completely incapable of critical thinking on the topic.
-
alby at 01:01 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
I don’t think that self-defining “skeptics” will be disturbed by this study, which indeed is very interesting.
I suppose they cannot be disturbed by any facts and arguments because imho try to convince these type of thinkers that AGW is a real and dangerous phenomenon using climate science is like to convince pious hindus that cow is not an holy creature with evolutionist biology knowledge.
Anyhow I have a small question looking at the last graph ("15-years GMST trend..."):
we can argue that positive Y-axis data on black circles for long period show directly a warming effect (from 1900 to 1935 roughly and from 1965 to now)?
And also that the patterns for show period going up and down (the longest up from about 1960 to 1985 , the longest down from approx. 1925 to 1940) of the circles in the chain indicates an acceleration (up) or deceleration (down) of the general warming rate (i.e shows in other way the variability)?
-
funglestrumpet at 00:21 AM on 7 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
I have just endured forty-two minutes and twenty-two seconds of the good Lord spouting forth about his new paper. He gets up to all his usual tricks, such as wearing several layers of clothing while indoors because it is cold outside and therefore global warming is all a hoax. Anyone with the stomache to watch it can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE7r0gk5nmw (USA Watchdog channel).
He closes with the assertion that if his paper is found to be correct, it will settle the whole issue of whether climate change is real or not. I would like to suggest that the converse is also true. If his paper is found to be incorrect, then by the same token he should accept that such an eventuality proves that it is real and that he should just shut up about the issue. I am not holding my breath! Experience says that no matter how many papers there are like this OP, he will not change his stance. Though there are signs of desperation. He seems to be linking climate change to a socialist/communist conspiracy.
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, we discourage commenters from providing direct links to propaganda pieces produced by Monckton and his ilk.
Warning: Watching a video like the one linked to above can be injurous to your mental health and well-being.
-
daveburton at 23:23 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
To address concerns about comparing data only for the endpoints (1900 & 2014), I went back and used WebPlotDigitizer to digitize a number of intermediate points. I digitized all years ending in "0" so that decadal trends could be calculated starting with year 1900, which is the earliest year in Dr. Cowtan's graph. I also digitized years ending in "4" so that decadal trends could be calculated ending with year 2014, which is the latest year for which data exists. (I didn't include the other years because digitizing all that data is very tedious!)
Using WebPlotDigitizer, I digitized the temperatures for each plot (unadjusted temperatures and adjusted temperatures) for the following years:
1900, 1904, 1910, 1914, 1920, 1924, 1930, 1934, 1940, 1944, 1950, 1954, 1960, 1964, 1970, 1974, 1980, 1984, 1990, 1994, 2000, 2004, 2010, 2014.(Note: I started over, so some digitized values are very slightly different from the values I previously obtained.)
I loaded all the data into a spreadsheet in Excel, with these column headers:
year unadj_temp adj_temp
I then added ten calculated columns:
adj-unadj = the difference between adjusted and unadjusted temperature.
50yr_unadj_diff = the difference in unadjusted temperatures between the designated year and fifty years earlier. If positive, it indicates warming compared to fifty years earlier; if negative, it indicates cooling.
50yr_adj_diff = the difference in adjusted temperatures between the designated year and fifty years earlier.
50yr_%warm_from_adj = the percentage of the warming which is due to the adjustments, over 50-year intervals, starting with 1900-1950, and ending with 1964-2014. (Percentage is shown as "100%" if the unadjusted data indicated cooling.) The results were:
100.0%, 22.2%, 39.6%, 100.0%, 54.4%, 100.0%, 48.1%, 96.8%, 21.6%, 30.9%, 20.7%, 17.0%, 7.7%, 7.5%.
Note that, over the last 50 years (1964-2014), only 7.5% of the warming is due to adjustments (i.e., the adjustments increased warming by 8.1%). However, of all the 50-year intervals, that interval shows the lowest percentage of warming due to adjustments.70yr_unadj_diff = the difference in unadjusted temperatures between the designated year and seventy years earlier.
70yr_adj_diff = the difference in adjusted temperatures between the designated year and seventy years earlier.
70yr_%war_from_adj = the percentage of the warming which is due to the adjustments, over 70-year intervals, starting with 1900-1970, and ending with 1944-2014:
89.0%, 43.0%, 28.6%, 75.8%, 23.7%, 27.4%, 35.6%, 27.2%, 16.2%, 15.9%.114yr_unadj_diff = the difference in unadjusted temperatures between 2014 and 1900 (0.86 °C).
114yr_adj_diff = the difference in adjusted temperatures between 2014 and 1900 (1.16 °C).
114yr_%war_from_adj = the percentage of the warming which is due to the adjustments (26%).
114yr_increase_by_adj = the percentage by which the adjustments increased the reported warming (35%).
I added all these files to my little web page about this argument between Booker and Cowtan:
http://tinyurl.com/cowtan-v-booker
The screenshot files (with and without digitization points added), digitized data files, spreadsheet, WebPlotDigitizer calibration & data file, and notes are all available in a convenient .zip archive, in case you want to check my work or do additional calculations.One last note: to address Tom Curtis's concern, based on the USHCN adjustments, that the endpoints migh have anomolous adjustments, I used Excel to plot adj-unadj for the 24 years which I digitized. If you download the spreadsheet and load it into Excel, you'll see that it looks like it's almost linearly increasing, though because I digitized only 20% of the years it's obviously incomplete.
-
bjchip at 22:51 PM on 6 February 2015Claims that climate models overestimate warming are 'unfounded', study shows
This may or may not have been hasty.
I see that there is some information on climateaudit that the statistical methods used are flawed. I do not have the background to double check that. I hope the authors can check it out and act appropriately.... quickly.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your comment appears to be a thinly-disguised attempt to castr a shadow on the information presented in the OP. If so, please cease and desist playing such a game on this website.
Upon further review, this comment is retracted.
-
shoyemore at 18:15 PM on 6 February 2015Katharine Hayhoe's climate elevator pitch
There are said to be three ways to persuade people rhetorically:
- Logos (or Logic)
- Ethos (or Authority)
- Pathos (or Emotion)
The least effective is Ethos, the most effective is Pathos. However, it is a bit short-term. We can be swayed by a powerful, plausible sales pitch (e.g. Monckton!), and change our minds on reflection.
So Logos, which science uses, is the most effective in the long term for those willing to engage with it. Since Logos is demanding and tiring, it is difficult.
But for an "elevator pitch", Logos is pretty much long, slow thinking, so for a quick impression, go for Pathos every time.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:30 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
daveburton @20, first and most importantly, your comments about the phrase "dishonest adjustments" are entirely beside the point. You completely fail to adress the substantive points I made in my comment @17, failing in particular to adress the clear evidence that there is substantial year to year variability in adjusted data, particularly in the early twentieth century. You further fail to adress the fact that the adjustments to land data, and to SST data in the early twentieth century have opposite effects on the trend. Your failure to adress these and other issues makes your comments about the phrase "dishonest adjustments" look like a simple, and deliberate distraction from the fact that your points have been refuted in detail, and that (apparently), you have no substantive response.
Second, you claim to "have said nothing about 'dishonest adjustments'". Never-the-less you are commenting on a critique of Booker's article, and Booker definitely suggests the adjustments are dishonest, calling them "scary chicanery". You, yourself summarize Booker's article by saying:
"Christopher Booker thinks NOAA is distorting global land temperature data to inflate reported global warming, and fan the flames of climate alarmism."
That is, according to you Booker is saying the adjustments were made with the intent to "... inflate the reported global warming, and fan the flames of climate alarmism", ie, that it was done from dishonest motives. As I did not indicate that it was your theory, my language was entirely justified and your attempted distraction is itself ungrounded.
-
Tom Dayton at 14:12 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Dave Burton, you have revealed NOAA to be profoundly incompetent indeed, because their sinister attempt to hide the explanation of homogenization was so poor that a quick internet search revealed it in several place such as the CDIAC site. Congratulations.
-
daveburton at 13:25 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Tom Curtis, just to be perfectly clear, I said nothing about "dishonest adjustments."
It is very possible to to make incorrect adjustments without conscious dishonesty, though simple error, or unrecognized bias. There's a very human tendancy for scientists to scrutinize data more critically if it is contrary to their preconceptions, than if it confirms them. That tendency can easily introduce bias in the reported results, despite everyone involved having the very best of intentions.
NOAA used to have, on their web site, a description of how they adjusted measured temperature data based on what seemed to me like a very crude proxy for urban heat island effect: satellite observations of nighttime illumination. That material is gone from their site, now, and they've blocked archive.org from archiving such materials, and I didn't save a copy (at least I don't think so), so I don't have the details. But the procedure seemed highly dubious, to me, when I read about it a few years ago.
That doesn't mean that those adjustments were dishonest, however.
My point wasn't about motives. I was simply addressing the misconception that NOAA's adjustments made a negligible difference in the reported result. They don't. They make a big difference.
-
Stephen Leahy at 13:00 PM on 6 February 2015Water is far more valuable and useful than oil
denisaf: There is misunderstanding about water as renewable. Water does recycle but does it return to where it's needed and in an acceptable time frame? Not always. Drain a lake and it may not refill in your lifetime — where will you get your water in the meantime? The Aral Sea disaster offers an example.
Water scarcity is about time and place.
Treesong2: Only a small fraction of the water in Lake Erie is renewable - the rest is the gift of the last ice age. Lake levels have been falling in recent years mainly due to warmer winters. While your toilet water may be recycled, some of it is lost through leaks and contamination (sewage sludge).
Toilet use is a very small part of our daily water use which is the point of the article.
OPOF: The article doesn't get into the impacts of climate change - the book does.
CBDunkerson: Desal is likely to be out of reach for most people suffering from water scarcity. 1.2 billion people today do not have access to clean water. Half the world cannot turn a tap in their home to get drinking water. Let's hope there are break throughs in desal energy/cost requirements.
JH: Good links. 90% of water use is to grow food. Climate change is going to make feeding ourselves much harder.
-
daveburton at 12:57 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Tom Dayton, (re #15) the 900% example was intended as an illustration of the problem with using a cherry-picked subset of the full time series. It is an example of what not to do. But it is computed accurately. Seriously. It really is >900%.
However, (re #16) I did not say that the temperature anomalies do not exhibit much short-term variability. I said that NOAA's adjustments do not exhibit much short term variability. Which is right.
I concede, however, that when the adjustments are compared to the unadjusted temperature trend, e.g. by computing the adjustment amount as a percentage of the trend, the result is senstitive to both numbers. However, I did not pick an anomolously low right-hand endpoint to minimize the early 20th century warming. 1970 actually represented a minor peak in temperature: it was warmer than 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971 & 1972.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:53 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Tom Dayton @16, daveburton was incorrect (see my point 2 @17 above), but neither he nor I were talking about the simple anomaly on that point. Rather, we are talking about the adjustments, the difference between raw and homogenized data, which also shows substantial short term variability. Just not as much as the actual anomaly, and much less over the last 50 years.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:51 PM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
daveburton @14:
1)
"You are correct, Tom, but his graph was for the last 114 years, and his conclusion ("why would they [bother to] do that") only makes sense if the sum of NOAA's adjustments were inconsequential. It doesn't make sense if NOAA's adjustments were only inconsequential for one cherry-picked time interval, and very consequential for the whole record."
I indicated a couple of very substantial reasons as to why we should concentrate on the period since 1950. Because there are substantive reasons for the choice of time period, it is not a cherry pick. Suggesting that it is without adressing those reasons amounts to simple name calling as an argument. However, leave that aside.
The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of early twentieth century warming is natural in origin. Anthropogenic factors account for approximately a third of that warming, or according to one recent analysis, effectively none of it. This can be seen by the relative slopes of temperature and CO2 concentration in the early, and late twentieth century:
More substantively, comparing model retrodictions with global temperatures shows the models substantially underpredict the global trend in the early twentieth century:
(Note, the pink shaded area is the model prediction for anthropogenic plus natural forcings.)
That discrepancy can be accounted for almost completely by reference to short term variability not included in model forcings, primarilly ENSO, although the unusual warmth in the 1940s is still not accounted for.
So, with this knowledge in hand, your argument then becomes that the people at NOAA increased temperature trends in the early twentieth century when such increases run contrary to the AGW narative, but did not significantly increase trends in the late twentieth century where such increases would have supported the narrative.
Expanding the analysis beyond the late twentieth century does not make the theory of dishonest adjustments any more plausible. It just means you need to understand more background information to understand the relevance of what is happening.
2)
"You're right about the temperatures, Tom, but that's not what's being compared (by Dr. Cowtan, and by me). What's being compared is the temperature adjustments (i.e., the difference between adjusted and unadjusted temperatures), and they do not exhibit much short-term variability."
Here are the difference between raw and final USHCN temperatures:
Very clearly, you are wrong to claim "...they do not exhibit much short-term variability". There is substantial short term variablity, particularly in the early twentieth century, and particularly for 1900 itself. That is, of course, for the contiguous United States. Unfortunately I do not know of a similar chart for the global land record, but there is no reason to think it would also lack variability from year to year in adjustments. So while the adjustments show less short term variability than do the actual temperatures, never-the-less, they show substantial short term variability and comparisons of differences should be made using trend values.
3)
"SST is not air temperature, and, unfortunately, the SST data quality through most of the 20th century is even sketchier and subject to more adjustments than the land air temperatures."
First, it would be nice if there was a more or less continuous, global record of air surface temperatures at 2 meters above sea level. Unfortunately no such record exists, so you make use of the records you in fact have rather than pretend to complete ignorance. Those records are, however, strongly relevant. As anybody knows, who has lived both inland and near the sea, the thermal mass of the surface waters mean they absolutely dominate the variability in nearby air masses. That is so even 50 km inland, let alone a mere 2 meters above the surface of the water. Although there will be some difference in the actual values between SST and 2 meter air temperature immediately above the surface, they will not be large and they will be consistent so that trends in the former would have been reflected in trends in the later.
Given this, I regard your exclusion of SST from the record of interest as a mere cop out. It is particularly the case given that all Global Mean Surface Temperature records use SST data over oceans, for want of any better record to use.
Second, the SST temperature data is in fact very extensive, although it does show some coverage lapses (as does the land record), particularly in the Southern Ocean.
Third, while the SST data is also subject to adjustments, they are not subject to "the same adjustments":
(Source)
As you can see, while the net effect of adjustments on land has been to cool the early twentieth century relative to the late twentieth century, the net effect on SST has been the opposite. That is, it warms the early twentieth century relative to the late twentieth century. That is, it reduces the twentieth century temperature trend.
So, if we look at the actual data, it does not support your dismissal, which is shown to be glib, and misleading. Contrary to the impression you convey, combining land and SST data will reduce the global trend from 1900 more than would be the case by simply diluting the 30% land coverage with data with no trend adjustment.
4)
"You can't do that, Tom. It's mathematically incorrect. The percentage difference isn't a sum that you can divide by 11.5 to get the per-decade adjustment-generated percentage difference in warming, it's an average."
Then it is a good thing that that is not what I did. Rather, I projected the difference in adjustment over the last 50 years back over the record to 1900. That, of course, only gives a ball park figure, and given the additional data noted at point three above, underestimates the reduction in the difference for global figures. It is near enough, however, for this discussion.
-
Tom Dayton at 11:05 AM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Dave Burton, you are incorrect that the temperature anomalies do not exhibit much short-term variability. For example, see the escalator graph.
-
Tom Dayton at 10:18 AM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
No, Dave Burton, it is not okay to compute trends by merely connecting end points. You need to compute a regression line. Seriously, a 900% change?!
-
daveburton at 09:50 AM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
michael sweet wrote, You have mislabeled your graph. In the video the graph is clearly labeled NOAA Paraguay data. You have changed the label to Globally averaged Land Surface data."
No, Michael, that graph is global. Listen to Dr. Cowtan describe it, at 3:30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA#t=210
He says, "We can calculate a global land temperature record using..."Tom Curtis wrote, "in the video Kevin Cowtan says (3:55) that "... the NOAA adjustments make only about a 3% difference to the amount of warming over the last 50 years" (my emphasis)."
You are correct, Tom, but his graph was for the last 114 years, and his conclusion ("why would they [bother to] do that") only makes sense if the sum of NOAA's adjustments were inconsequential. It doesn't make sense if NOAA's adjustments were only inconsequential for one cherry-picked time interval, and very consequential for the whole record.
For instance, if you compare the adjusted to unadjusted warming for the first 70 years of the graph (1900 to 1970), instead of the last 50 years, you'll find that the adjustments increased the net warming by more than 900% (from 0.025 °C to 0.257 °C).
Of course, you're probably saying to yourself, "but that's cherry-picking!" — and you're right. But no more so than just examining the last 50 years is cherry-picking.
Tom continued, "you have made your determination simply by comparing end points. Because of the high short term variability of temperatures, such comparisons can easilly mislead by showing atypical values."
You're right about the temperatures, Tom, but that's not what's being compared (by Dr. Cowtan, and by me). What's being compared is the temperature adjustments (i.e., the difference between adjusted and unadjusted temperatures), and they do not exhibit much short-term variability.
Tom continued, "it is the land only data, of which Kevin Cowtan indicates their is a 10% difference after adjustments."
But that's only for the cherry-picked last 50 years.
Tom continued, "That 10% is reduced to 3% by the inclusion of SST data."
SST is not air temperature, and, unfortunately, the SST data quality through most of the 20th century is even sketchier and subject to more adjustments than the land air temperatures.
Tom continued, [if you multiply by 30% because only 30% of the globe is land] "your 35% would reduce to approximatly 11% difference over a 115 year interval, or less than 1% difference per decade."
You can't do that, Tom. It's mathematically incorrect. The percentage difference isn't a sum that you can divide by 11.5 to get the per-decade adjustment-generated percentage difference in warming, it's an average.
-
John Cook at 08:39 AM on 6 February 2015Scott Mandia on teaching students to debunk climate misinformation
Thanks for your comment - I'll be in touch, would be interesting to hear more about your course and you may be interested in our upcoming MOOC, Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, which will include a great deal of creative commons material available for educators and communicators.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:09 AM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
Zeke Hausfather has an excellent post on adjustments to temperature, though at an unfortunate site.
-
Runrig at 06:26 AM on 6 February 2015Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
Folks,
Further to posting my/your input over at Phys.org, Mr bell posted up this (whilst not acceding defeat).
"Thank you Tony for your honest analysis and discussing the content of my claims. I'll pursue this at the discussion thread you provided.
It's too bad there aren't more people on this thread with intellectual honesty, but I do appreciate yours."
So you may well be able to take him in in person.
PS: he has been generally polite (and always with me), except when when goaded.
Tony
-
Maggnum at 06:14 AM on 6 February 2015Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
I just want to comment on the well thought out answers on this thread, with thanks. I should have thought to have brought the problem here, and thanks Tony for doing so.
Mr. Bell is somewhat less objective than he holds himeslf out to be. Tom. your review seems to hit the crux of the issues - Mr. Bell is using a deceptive and incomplete "analysis" as a means to call the IPCC as a whole deceptive or incompetant. I think that, in and of iteself, is enough to put his "analysis" into its proper perspective.
Thank you Tom for looking into it, and thank you Tony for bringing it here for review.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:23 AM on 6 February 2015Kevin Cowtan Debunks Christopher Booker's Temperature Conspiracy Theory
daveburton @9 and @10, in the video Kevin Cowtan says (3:55) that "... the NOAA adjustments make only about a 3% difference to the amount of warming over the last 50 years" (my emphasis). By comparing the range from 1900-2014, you are not checking his claims, but an entirely different claim that he did not make. You may think this is a minor point, but in fact the key attribution statement for the IPCC is with regard to the period 1950-2010. That is, it is with regard to (approximately) the last half century. There are several reasons for that, one of which is the relative accuracy of the temperature record post 1950. Consequently there are substantive reasons why the IPCC and Kevin Cowtan concentrate on the most recent 50-60 years.
Further, on checking your spreadsheet it becomes very apparent that you have made your determination simply by comparing end points. Because of the high short term variability of temperatures, such comparisons can easilly mislead by showing atypical values. To avoid this, the correct method is to determine the respective trends, and compare them directly, or if you insist on comparing end points, compare the endpoints of the trendlines. This is particularly the case as it is future temperature trends we are concerned with. Comparing the endpoints for 1950-2014 (14% difference by your method), 1965-2014 (10% difference by your method) shows the effect of increasing accuracy overtime resulting in less difference between adjusted and unadjusted data, and highlights the problem with using endpoints.
Finally, although Michael Sweet is incorrect to describe the graph as Paraguay data, it is the land only data, of which Kevin Cowtan indicates their is a 10% difference after adjustments. That 10% is reduced to 3% by the inclusion of SST data, and we could expect a similar scale of reduction in your figure if it compared land/ocean temperature data rather than land only data. That is, your 35% would reduce to approximatly 11% difference over a 115 year interval, or less than 1% difference per decade.
Prev 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 Next
