Recent Comments

Prev  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  983  984  985  Next

Comments 48851 to 48900:

48851. Kevin C at 01:32 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Tristan: On the satellite record, I'm afraid that's beyond my expertise. Glenn and Rob have done articles here and here which you may already have seen.

       On coverage, GISS is close enough to global (>98%). The recent BEST memo from Robert Rhode suggests their informal method of extrapolation gives results which are pretty close to optimal. Look for my JMA post later in the week which adds a couple more details, and hopefully a fuller treatment later in the year.

48852. Tristan at 01:19 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Two questions for Kevin

       1) What do you make of the disparities between the RSS, UAH and STAR interpretations of the satellite records? Is some sort of reconciliation in the future or will this be an issue for the foreseeable future?

       2) Do you think we will get satisfactory 100% coverage from GISS any time soon, via more data or better algorithms?

48853. Tristan at 00:35 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       I'm lookin forward to Kevin's followup video in 2029 refuting the 'no warming since 2014' claim.

48854. Kevin C at 00:28 AM on 11 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks for the comments!

       John: Real Climate have an update to the F&R results here. By chance I did the same calculation using Foster's released code a couple of weeks back, with the same results.

       HR: I'm slowly working towards producing what I hope to be the best possible estimate of short term trends and their attibution - what you've seen here is just a part of that work. As the uncertainties are narrowed down the underlying trend will probably become more significant, but at the same time any genuine change in trend (which is scientifically interesting) will also become more significant.

       The uncertainty in the volcanic+solar lag term is currently the biggest issue, which is why the 35 year calc is unsatisfactorary. I think I am addressing a real issue with the F&R calc, but I am pretty sure my solution is suboptimal. I can't currently claim with any certainty that my results are closer than theirs.

       However the 2-box model is also unsatisfactorary, because the uncertain human forcings have a far bigger role in determining the response function than the volcanic term. The fact that it gives similar conclusions is reassuring, but inconclusive.

       That's why I think a hybrid method is needed, rather than the 2-box model in it's current form. I'd be very happy if someone else was inspired to look at this.

       In the mean time, I posted 2-box model graphs with just enso subtracted, and with enso+volcano+solar subtracted here which give you some idea of what the plots would look like.

48855. John Brookes at 18:00 PM on 10 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks!  A very nice explanation.  Its easy to see that multivariate linear regression is very much susceptible to abuse, and so the number of variables must be limited to those most likely to effect the result.

       I'm looking forward to the extension of the Foster Ramsdorf graph as the future unfolds.

48856. rockytom at 15:22 PM on 10 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       DB, the URL for Dr. Weart's timeline is as follows: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

       Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! Updated link.
48857. mbryson at 13:15 PM on 10 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       I think the problem with XL is the implicit commitment it represents, that we will indeed burn whatever we can extract.  The tar sands are an expensive, dirty source of oil, and even burning all the conventional oil we can extract has devastating implications for our climate and oceans.  Since XL's construction will support continued expansion (and increased profitiability) for the tar sands, it's a step down the wrong path.  Even if all it does is replace other sources of oil in the short run, in the long run it implies burning more fossil fuels rather than beginning the transition to much greater efficiency and a low-carbon energy economy.  

48858. Spencer Weart at 12:36 PM on 10 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       Thanks for the reference to my timeline ...It's just been updated to 2012, with links to the full historical discussions.

       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
48859. PhilipR at 10:14 AM on 10 February 2013
       For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
       

       This is truly a wonderful article and a hugely enjoyable set of responses in the comments section. It's refreshing when you live as a foreigner in the United States to see that critical thinking is alive and well elsewhere in the world.

       Which brings me to the bigger problem that I think is the root of the issue both with science in general and climate science in particular. That is the assault upon the impartiality and the credibility of science as a methodology and tool for problem solving. For me the origins of this issue go back to the tobacco 'debate' but I'm sure it's roots go much further. What was done in the name of free speech and the freedom to pursue corporate interests was that the tobacco industry was allowed to call into question the findings of the medical establishment vis a vis lung cancer, stroke, emphysema etc. By commissioning bogus or bad science for the express purpose of contradicting or casting doubt upon legitimate science and redirecting public policy in a direction that was more favorable to the industry. 

       Fast forward to the new millennium and the same successful tactic is rampant across the board for all areas of public policy and science, with the most critical being environmental protection, energy policy and obviously climate science. The honestly dishonest skeptics may be a thorn in your side but the mischief makers: those who are not skeptical at all merely hell bent on destroying the credibility of scientists and arguments that contravene a pre-existing agenda, are the greater issue.

       Conspiracy ideation in relation to lung cancer was created and actively fostered by an industry intent on avoiding regulation. Similar skuldugerry is now so widespread that the term 'astro turf' which is in common parlance describes a fake grass roots movement created solely to oppose genuine social unrest. It's great to be able to find a tool to rebuff the hysterical as well as the commentators, bloggers and climate deniers but these are simply zombies created to cast doubt where no doubt exists, to tie up resources and time in rebuffing what is nonsense and to sap the credibility of those rasing the alarm.

       It's one of the sadder aspects of the present climate debate that those on the side of science and truth hold themselves aloof to conspiracy regarding the other side as simply ignorant and misguided. Whilst they themselves remain hopelessly naive and blind to the real agenda of people who are anything but. 

48860. Jose_X at 09:35 AM on 10 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Dana, thanks for this article. I don't know what are the total long term carbon and environmental costs to starting new infrastructure that Andy Skuce (#16) spoke about for the case of tar sand, but generally your data shows that XL will have a very small negative carbon impact since what counts otherwise are marginal costs (1/700 of total consumption based on your observation).
       
       It seems that whether XL gets added or not is not that important from the global warming perspective. More important is what jyushchyshyn (#1) mentioned about consumers changing habits, but this is only realistic I think if government takes steps like raising taxes, eg, like MartinG (#2) mentioned, in order to cover total costs to society from fuel processing.
       
       See, just like Shell drilling up north, if you give a limited trial offer to industry, give them a bone and an opportunity to prove themselves, and then require that externalities be covered in the costs/tax (and threaten legal action if they screw up), then you can keep that new exploration limited and force safety and efficiency innovation on the part of industry. If industry sees a chance, they have incentive to try and innovate or abandon the effort if it proves too costly. And if pipelines are the most efficient transports, forcing other ways may create more harm than good.
       
       A real victory might be to accept XL conditionally on taxes being raised to help fight global warming costs and other environmental costs. This can be asked of Congress. A precedent can be established to make it easier to later address real costs to all the areas mentioned by Andy Skuce. Allow the pipeline if its full costs are included today -- a future generation carbon defrayal tax -- think of the (great great grand) children!. With higher costs, consumers are more likely to change habits.
       
       We have to keep perspective on XL or we lose people in the middle who can rationalize. XL doesn't seem to add that much harm from a global warming perspective. It can serve as an opportunity to add taxes or gain something else that can have a real positive impact that far exceeds the tiny marginal impact of XL.
       
       And if the XL costs are high in other environmental areas (something being addressed), then that should be the argument.

48861. HumanityRules at 07:22 AM on 10 February 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Thanks. Sorry I know people always want more. Since the Ramsdorf method was publshed I've been curious what the longer term data looked like. Fig 4 is interesting but is there any chance you can show the breakdown of the different forcings that go into making that, similar to Fig2 for the shorter time period. I'm curious what the long run of La Nina in the mid-20th century are doing and what the anthro contribution over the whole century looks like.

       Cheers

48862. Bob Loblaw at 01:58 AM on 10 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       Shoyemore:

       Slightly before Manabe and Wetherald (1967) came Manabe and Strickler (1964). The '64 model assumed constant absolute humidity for its scenarios, whereas the '67 paper used relative humidity.

       What I think is a free version of the '67 paper is here.

       Ditto for the '64 paper here (abstract at the journal, but there is a link to the PDF that doesn't seem to be paywalled).

       Moderator Response: [DB] Updated the link to the 1967 paper to an openly-available copy.
48863. shoyemore at 19:42 PM on 9 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       I often get the "climatology is not a mature science" trope from fake-sceptics, and posts like this are important for rebutting it.

       If I could assign a moment when climaet science became "mature", it would be Manabe & Wetherald's 1967 model of the Earth's climate, the first radiative-convective model. Before that, you have individual giants like Arrhenius, Plass and Keeling but after the 1960s, everything starts to coalesce in theory and methodologies. Stephen Schneider's memoir Science as a Contact Sport  is an excellent personal view of subsequent history.

       To draw an analogy, while Arrhenius was investigating CO2, Henri Becquerel was investigating radioactivity. Only 40 to 50 years or so separated Becquerel (and other giants like Rutherford) from the discovery of nuclear fission and the atomic bomb, which can be looked upon as moment nuclear physics matured.

       Climate science took a bit longer, but not inordinately so.

48864. Doug Hutcheson at 17:10 PM on 9 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       The graphic showing events along the historical time-line of understanding AGW, will be a valuable resource to point to when rebutting the contrarian 'climate science is immature' meme. Nice work.

48865. Doug Hutcheson at 16:56 PM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       It's time for the USA to take a climate leadership role

       What a difference it would make, if only they would exercise the global leadership they are so fond of talking about.

48866. JasonB at 13:48 PM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       scaddenp is correct. Most of the historical changes that have introduced inhomogeneities into the temperature record have tended to cause recorded temperatures to suddenly go down. Station moves from built-up locations to more rural locations (e.g. Darwin, Port Hedland); switching to Stephenson screens; changing Time of Observation; changing the method sea surface temperatures were recorded after WWII; heck, in the very earliest part of the Central England Temperature record, the temperatures are not comparable because the thermometers were placed inside to avoid having to go out in the cold to read them!

       So we should expect corrections to often be increasing recent temperatures or decreasing older temperatues as we become more able to isolate and correct for various effects.

       However, suppose that in spite of the facts:

       1. That these effects have actually been measured in order to create formulas to correct for them.
       2. That GISS has been releasing all source code and data for years, and publishing all algorithms in the peer-reviewed literature for decades, and independent groups have replicated their results, and not one single fake sceptic has ever published a criticism of any of the algorithms used.
       3. That using raw data, and even tiny subsets of the raw data, gives almost identical results.

       In spite of all those facts, you just don't trust any form of correction? Not because you can actually identify anything wrong in all that publicly-available information, but just because your gut tells you it must be so?

       Well, in that case you can completely avoid all corrections by simply detecting when a discontinuity in a temperature station's record occurs, and then simply break the record in two at that point. Pretend it's actually two completely different records, and make no effort to quantify the effect of the discontinuity so that you can correct for it.

       What do you get then? Why, BEST of course!

       And guess which land-only temperature series has the highest trend?

48867. John Brookes at 13:08 PM on 9 February 2013
       For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
       

       fydijkstra makes a very good point.  Each side in this issue sees the other as denying reality.  Of course we know that is just projection on their part :-)

       But its now impossible for "skeptics" to change their minds.  When you start from the position that scientists are lying and have falsified the temperature record, then no amount of information (just more lies) will change your mind.

       Scientists just need to keep trying to do the best they can to further our understanding of climate.  And their peers need to keep being tough on them, keeping them honest.

       The "skeptics" can be ignored.

48868. scaddenp at 12:06 PM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I think the expectation that adjustments should be even is also misplaced. If you want to compare temperature measurements mad today with measurement taken in the morning, against same station but temperature done in afternoon, then you have to move past temperature down. Its a change of practise. Likewise, comparing modern screened electronic thermometer against past unscreened and glass thermometer also require past to be adjusted down.

       I would certainly not expect any of the temperature records to be beyond improvement. Its a case of methodology advancement and available funding. What is also clear though is that you cant blame GW on adjustments.

48869. Tony O at 11:32 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       If we are to have a chance of saving any sort of world that we can live in, then we need to stop all these new projects. If we fail to stop the XL pipeline shipping this dirtiest of oils to the world then we are in very deep trouble.

       To those campaining and demonstrating I salute you.

48870. Tom Curtis at 08:41 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin @253 claims:

       " ...a 10% adjustment is rather large, considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment."

       In fact, if you look at the SkS trend Calculator you will see that the trend for Gistemp is 0.064 C per decade +/- 0.007 C per decade (11%).  So his point is that the temperture record is not as accurate as advertized because a change smaller than the advertized accuracy has been made.

       Even more bizzare is claim that:

       "I don't have enough info regarding the algorithm to say anything more about it, except the general observation, again, that the chances of all the adjustments being on "the correct side of the belief paradine" can't be 100%"

       It has been already established that the change in gistemp is primarilly because of changes in the Global Historical Climate Network, whose algorithim Kevin claims ignorance of.  Here are the actual adjustments from raw data made by that algorithm:

       

       (Note: Darwin is highlighted because it comes from a discussion of a frequent denier cherry pick  used to suggest the GHCN adjustments are wrong.)

       The key point for this discussion is that the adjustments are not 99% in one direction.  They are very close to being 50/50.  In another discussion of adjustment bias, it was found that the mean adjustment of 0.017 degrees C/decade.  This data is for the GHCNv2 rather than v3, but no doubt the statistics of the later will be similar.

48871. Ken in Oz at 06:56 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       I have to agree with the author - there is a fundamental disconnect between commercial decision making and science based - or even common sense based - understanding of the interconnectedness of people and the environment. Commercial decision making is about costs, competitiveness and profitability. There are legal obligations but limited ethical ones. There is no innate ethical framework there that requires deferring to science based reality. Climate policy, assessed in light of the commercial implications, is seen as imposing a burden of costs and regulations via government policy. Government policy is something seen as amenable to influence using familiar tools - lobbying, tankthink, PR and advertising, mostly focusing on and exacerbating economic hopes and fears. There is no requirement to defer to science or even to be fair minded or even truthful in the use of those tools of influence. In many respects what they are doing is no more than would be expected of them. But our elected representatives and community's leaders work within a framework where science based reality and truthfulness about it should not be dismissed or ignored. Commerce is doing what commerce does, but politics is letting us down. Politicians who act as the political voices of commerce, above the wider, longer term interests of their constituents have given opposition to action on climate a respectability and legitimacy it otherwise wouldn't have.

48872. tlitb1 at 06:36 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       BTW. To the some who question the benefit of cities may I suggest some resource material?

        

       http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/cities/

48873. tlitb1 at 06:29 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       @John Mason at 12:47 PM on 8 February, 2013

       Thanks for the reply.

       "I didn't say it was deliberate, did I?"

       I inferred you had in mind a deliberate intent specifically from the “...which is why [*it*] has promoted...” in the segment I quoted.

       I can understand speaking of observed large scale movements, tendencies, and even non-sentient chemical reactions in an analogous way to intention, but I always want to find out more, and question, when the author who uses them seems only to move within that analogous thinking without surfacing too often as you do to me.

       I want to know what you think when you say things like, as in your reply to me, ...

       "...but neither do they seem to have much concern that they are in the business of doing so..."

       "...that conscience-related bit has fallen by the wayside..."

       You seem to be clearly talking about motivations, or absence of good ones, in perceived powerful entities that you have a contrary position to.

       If that entity is best described as the "corporate world", then I would say that the "corporate world" is something that would more likely follow the dread "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. 

       i.e. be doing, or thinking, nothing. ;)

       i tseems to me that the corporate world is something that allows the luxury of detaching from modern society and speculating about what it is to be “disconnected”.

       Is that even a valid concept?

       The concept of “disconnect” implies there was previously a “connection” whereas I suggest if you were rather specifically arguing for a new method of connection then that would have greater resonance.

       I currently think that large scale economies and the “corporate world” have offered large parts of modern humanity the ability to find the time to make considerations of how best to “connect” to whatever they want to choose to connect to ;)

48874. KR at 06:11 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Composer99 - Excellent catch on the False Dichotomy. 

       Kevin - You have (incorrectly) posed the question of accuracy as binary; that if current data is accurate then previous data cannot be accurate, cannot be trusted, and you then attempted to use that as a Reductio ad Absurdum argument against corrections.

       That is simply wrong.

       The real state of affairs is a continuum:

       • Estimates pre-2007 were and are accurate, within some uncertainties.
       • Current estimates are more accurate, with fewer uncertainties.

       Again, if you disagree with any particular correction(s), you are going to have to present data demonstrating an issue with that. Not logical fallacies and arm-waving, which is all you have presented to date.

48875. Andy Skuce at 05:50 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin@10

       First, did you read the paragraph that I highlighted? It deals with the issues you raise.

       Second, I can't speak for Dana, but I am against any new hydrocarbon infrastructure that does not pay for the negative externalities that it causes, including new oil and gas pipelines. Every new capital investment in an energy project tends to lock in that infrastrucure for the project lifecycle, since the capital is a sunk cost. We can't afford to keep building the infrastructure that will increase carbon emissions over decades. This argument justifies Dana's calculations of the total, well-to-wheels impact of Keystone XL.

       See this post and the figure below

       

48876. dana1981 at 05:49 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       JoeT - I'm not sure where Pierrehumbert got his figure from, but I saw the XL 830,000 barrel per day maximum capacity in several places, including the State Dept EIS.  The existing Keystone pipeline has around a 500,000 gallon per day capacity, so perhaps Pierrehumbert accidentally cited that number instead of the value for XL.

       Also Kevin, I'm a he, not a she.

48877. JoeT at 05:41 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Excellent summary Dana, thanks very much. It always takes me quite some time to go through all your references. I appreciate the considerable amount of time and effort it takes to synthesize all the reports you go through.

       Just a quick question. Just a few weeks ago I read the Pierrehumbert article on realclimate that you linked to with the Andrew Leach reference. Aside from the fact that he measures tonnes of C and you do tonnes of CO2 (a factor of 3.67), your numbers are 2.3 higher than his. He's got 500,000 barrels/day to your 830,000 and 0.42 tonnes CO2/barrel to your 0.58. What accounts for the difference? Thanks.

48878. dana1981 at 05:37 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin @9, see Andy @8.  Gold star to Andy.

48879. JoeT at 05:36 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Excellent summary Dana, thanks very much. It always takes me quite some time to go through all your references. I appreciate the considerable amount of time and effort it takes to synthesize all the reports you go through.

       Just a quick question. Just a few weeks ago I read the Pierrehumbert article on realclimate that you linked to with the Andrew Leach reference. Aside from the fact that he measures tonnes of C and you do tonnes of CO2 (a factor of 3.67), your numbers are 2.3 higher than his. He's got 500,000 barrels/day to your 830,000 and 0.42 tonnes CO2/barrel to your 0.58. What accounts for the difference? Thanks.

48880. Composer99 at 05:36 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin:

       These adjustments were made in 2008. This thread was started in 2007. Therefore there was confidence that these were accurate before they were. That is my point.

       Unfortunately, your point appears to rest on a false dichotomy: that data are either accurate or they are not. As Bob Loblaw noted, data are actually on a continuum of more or less accurate and there is almost always room for improvement. If the accuracy of GISTemp improved due to the 2008 adjustments, it does not follow, of necessity, that it was not accurate before, only that it was less accurate.

       I do not have a priori reason to expect that, just logic, common sense, and probability.

       A new algorithm is used that can find abnormalities better. It stands to reason, that the probability of finding data that "needs corrective action" only on "one side of the argument" would be rather small.

       This is an argument from personal incredulity, not an appeal to "logic", "common sense", or "probability". In addition, with regards to treating the data there are no "sides of the argument". There are only identifiable, quantifiable uncertainties & biases (of the methodological/numerical kind, not the political kind) in the data and adjustments to correct them.

       It is just a thought provoking exercise. Do you really believe that all those adjustments were needed, but that there was only the one adjustment the other way? I just read a piece by Dr. Sanford (Union Concerned Scientists) the other week where he was arguing that due to the fact that since there were MORE high temp records than low temp records lately, that this proved AGW theory. That level was something like 75-25, not 99-1.

       Are those Dr Sanford's exact words? Is there a link? Based on what you have written it appears Dr Sanford noted that high temperature records exceeded low temperature records in the given timeframe by a ratio of 3:1. How is this pertinent? Insofar as you are tying this back to a ratio of adjustments performed on NASA GISS, this appears to be a non sequitur.

       How reliable is the data. I am not naive to believe it can ever be 100% accurate, nor does it have to be. Again, this thread started in 2007, saying how reliable that data was, then there is a correction that adjusts the data in such a way as to increase the warming trend by 10% in 2008, so how reliable was it in 2007?

       That's all I'm asking.

       The false dichotomy identified at the start remains in play here. Just because the data was made more accurate/more reliable in 2008 does not mean it wasn't accurate or reliable at all in 2007. It just means it was not as accurate. If you suspect otherwise, can you provide some sort of calculation or other analysis to support your suspicion (or a link to someone else doing so)?

48881. Andy Skuce at 05:33 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Trevor_S@19

       while Andy seems to think we can all live in cities and install a few solar panels and spinning windmill blades

       I don't think I quite said that.

       I have been influenced by Stewart Brand's take on the environmental advantages  of most of us living in dense cities (ie, not suburban sprawl). This report from the Brookings Institute has some numbers and this Guardian article comments on the generally smaller carbon footprints of urban versus rural dwellers.

48882. Doug Bostrom at 05:22 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin:  ...only the difference between this and "normal" oil should be used, as this oil would replace other oil used, not be in addition to.

       "This" oil is relatively expensive to produce compared to preferred reservoirs, "preferred" including those with fairly horrendous geopolitical or technical challenges. If for instance the Arctic were to produce a true Middle East or Gulf of Mexico elephant play, the tar sands bubble would go "pop" instantaneously, only to be reinflated when the hypothetical Arctic bounty was exhausted. Willingness to capitalize the tar sand project on the grand scale of Keystone is simply an indication of the confidence fossil fuel firms have in our long term inability to pick and choose between reservoirs. 

       The very existence of Keystone says your argument is plainly wrong. 

       Rather than being a weirdly unusual and impossible economic choice, the tar sands project confirms our inclination (or rather desperate need because, let's face it,  we're addicted)  to burn -all- available hydrocarbons, not substitute something more expensive for what can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere. 

48883. Kevin8233 at 05:15 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       She is objecting to the Tar Sands XL Pipeline.  She goes on to show how Tar Sands oil is worse (on a CO2 basis) than normal oil.  So far so good.  As I stated above, if she was objecting to any oil pipeline, her methodology is fine.  She is however, trying to show why the Tar Sands Oil pipeline is objectionable, specifically, because it is Tar Sands Oil.  That is why only the difference matters.  Again, as stated earlier, the oil from this pipeline will replace oil from some other source.  If this pipeline were to be constructed so as to support some new, dedicated new oil consumption enterprise, her logic again would be fine.  This oil will replace some other oil that is more expensive.  So if she wants to include the total, then she must subtract the oil CO2 equivalents that are replaced, which is essentially what I did, only earlier.

48884. Andy Skuce at 05:06 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin @7

       Dana also mentioned the incremental effect of burning bitument versus regular crude oil in this paragraph.

       Additionally, as Andrew Leach notes, this 7 billion metric ton estimate is in an ideal world where the oil transported by Keystone XL would not otherwise be either shipped elsewhere or replaced with some other source.  The EPA has estimated that the "extra" emissions associated with Keystone XL as compared to a no-Keystone XL world with realistic assumptions is in the range of 1 billion metric tons of CO2 over 50 years.  If these assumptions are correct, constructing Keystone XL only represents closer to 0.2% of our carbon budget.

       Which is what I guess you were after. 

       
       

48885. KR at 04:49 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin - If you disagree with any of the corrections to the data, positive or negative in how they affect trends, you are going to have to state why that correction might be invalid! 

       You have not done so. 

       All you have done is express multiple fallacies: Argumented ad Consequentiam fallacy, an appeal to consequences, without addressing the truth or falsity of the corrections themselves (a correction was upward, therefore it must be wrong), the Common Sense fallacy, and an Argument from Personal Astonishment. I'm afraid none of those hold up against actual data. 

       As to pre-2007, our estimations improve all the time as new data comes in, as new relationships are identified. By your logic we should still be using Ptolemaic spheres...

        

48886. Dikran Marsupial at 04:45 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin wrote "These adjustments were made in 2008.  This thread was started in 2007.  Therefore there was confidence that these were accurate before they were.  That is my point."

       If that is your point, you are labouring under a misaprehension. Most SkS regulars are well aware of the fact that there are homogenisation issues with the data, and that there will continue to be adjustments as the science improves.  That is the nature of science.  However that does not mean that the data are unreliable, even with the adjustments, the uncertainties are small enough to be confident of the conclusions being drawn on the basis of those data.

       Kevin wrote "Again, this thread started in 2007, saying how reliable that data was, then there is a correction that adjusts the data in such a way as to increase the warming trend by 10% in 2008, so how reliable was it in 2007?

       That's all I'm asking."

       However, Kevin earlier wrote "If the data is/was so accurate, why does Hansen keep changing it?  And why are ALL changes in the direction that support his belief?  You would think that at least some "mistakes" were made in the other direction, no?  How much cooler are the 30's going to get?"

       It seems to me that your purpose has changed somewhat!

       If you want to ask scientific questions, then ask them, rather than imply scientists have been disingenuous.  All that achieves is to create a combative atmosphere that rarely helps much.

48887. Composer99 at 04:41 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin:

       Your criticism of Dana's logic & calculations appears to rest on your assumption that:

       Instead of calculating the total quantity of CO2 equivalents generated by this [the ongoing extraction of fossil fuels from Alberta tar sands], only the difference between this and "normal" oil should be used, as this oil would replace other oil used, not be in addition to. [Emphasis mine.]

       What is your justification for this assumption?

48888. Kevin8233 at 04:29 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin, if everybody thought the data were right before the adjustment they would have stopped working on it and the adjustment would not have been made. The adjustment was made precisely because of the research of climatologists who work to understand the limitations of the data.

       These adjustments were made in 2008.  This thread was started in 2007.  Therefore there was confidence that these were accurate before they were.  That is my point.

        

       There is no a priori reason to expect that adjustments to NASA GISS historical temperature data must be "fair and balanced". Only that they (a) address identifiable problems with the data and (b) are methodologically sound.

       You are correct.  I do not have a priori reason to expect that, just logic, common sense, and probability. 

       A new algorithm is used that can find abnormalities better.  It stands to reason, that the probability of finding data that "needs corrective action" only on "one side of the argument" would be rather small.

       It is just a thought provoking exercise.  Do you really believe that all those adjustments were needed, but that there was only the one adjustment the other way?  I just read a piece by Dr. Sanford (Union Concerned Scientists) the other week where he was arguing that due to the fact that since there were MORE high temp records than low temp records lately, that this proved AGW theory.  That level was something like 75-25, not 99-1.

        

       You seem to be falling into the "if we don't know everything, we know nothing" mindset where certain individuals in the fake skeptic camp play the uncertainty monster.

       This is the nature of the thread here.  How reliable is the data.  I am not naive to believe it can ever be 100% accurate, nor does it have to be.  Again, this thread started in 2007, saying how reliable that data was, then there is a correction that adjusts the data in such a way as to increase the warming trend by 10% in 2008, so how reliable was it in 2007?

       That's all I'm asking.

48889. John Mason at 04:25 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Interesting - a broad church there, so to speak. Personally I come at this from an observational, science-based position, but I do think people of almost all persuasions are increasingly recognising that something has gone badly wrong. I know some very conservative people, politically-speaking, who also hold this view and are searching for answers. The simplistic 'left versus right' argument that some tend to put forward looks even weaker in the light of your above post.

       It doesn't matter, senso stricto, whether the world was created or came into being via geological processes (the evidence tells me the second one). We can discuss that at our leisure after solving the big problem of our time - making sure it still feeds, waters and oxygenates us into the long future, and to do that the climate needs to be relatively stable.

48890. Kevin8233 at 03:58 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin - please read the "What is the Potential Climate Impact of Keystone XL?" section more carefully.

       My statement stands.  You calculated the TOTAL potential impact, and I am stating that that is illogical.  It is the "above and beyond" normal oil that is important to the issue of whether or not to proceed with the XL.  Your logic would argue against ANY oil pipeline, not tar sands pipeline.

        

48891. numerobis at 03:35 AM on 9 February 2013
       WYSIWYG Comments Feature
       

       On iOS/safari, the edit box does not scroll when you go back to edit a post, sometimes.  But not consistently (I'm failing to reproduce right now).  It also seems to interact poorly with the autocorrect: it's offering corrections for words I deleted.

       I've noticed the same with some bb forums.

       An option to have a dumb editor for "smart"phones and other dumb browsers would be ideal.

48892. John Hartz at 03:33 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       The Forward on Climate rally scheduled for Sunday, Feb 17 in Washington, DC is being sponsored by more than 100 environmental and progressive organizations in the US and Canada. To access a complete list of the sponsoring organizations, click here.

48893. numerobis at 03:27 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       "There is no reason to do it"

       There are many very good reasons to exploit tar sands.  The work is bringing very good jobs to some perfectly nice human beings, and it provides energy at a cheaper short-term cost for everyone.  It brings in large revenues to the relevant branches of government, who can then run social programs with only light tax burdens on the general population.  And, of course, it brings huge profits to the companies involved.

       Long term they are a disaster, of course.

48894. saileshrao at 02:52 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       From the Durban addendum on the Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change presented to Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC in Durban, Nov. 2011:
       
       "While Climate Change is a symptom, a fever that our Earth has contracted, the underlying disease is the disconnection from creation that plagues human societies throughout our world. We, the undersigned, pledge to heal this disconnection by promoting and exemplifying compassion for all creation in all our actions."
       
       Signed:
       Archbishop Desmond Tutu
       Ela Gandhi, Honorary President of WCRP (granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi)
       Bishop Geoff Davies, Executive Director of South African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (SAFCEI)
       Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, Catholic Church and Chair of KwaZulu Natal Inter Religious Council (KZN IRC)
       Dr. Mustafa Ali, Secretary General of African Council of Religious Leaders
       Bishop Michael Vorster, Methodist Church of Southern Africa, Natal
       Rev. Jenny Sprong, Methodist Church of Southern Africa
       Rev. Emmanuel Gabriel, Methodist Church of Southern Africa
       Stewart Kilburn, HIV 911
       Saydoon Sayed, World Council on Religions for Peace (WCRP) Coordinator, Secretary of KZN IRC
       Rev. Sue Britton, Anglican Church of South Africa
       Rabbi Hillel Avidan, South African Union of Progressive Judaism
       Professor Hoosen Vawda, Nelson Medical School
       Cannon Desmond Lambrechts, National Religious Association for Social Development
       Dr. Sylvia Kaye, Secretary of Bahai Faith of South Africa
       Dhunluxmi Desai, KZN IRC and Southern African Hindu Maha Sabha
       Sr. Agnes Grasboeck, Sisters of Mariannhill/ WCRP
       Jerald Vedan, Buddhist Representative for Inter Religious Council
       Pundit Raj Bharat, Atman Universal Movement and WCRP
       Martina Grasboeck
       Fauzia Shaikh
       Sister Usha Jeevan, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
       Seelan Moodliar, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
       Isaac Wittmann, Young Adults in Global Mission - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
       Kristin Opalinski, Lutheran Communion in Southern Africa
       Rev. Lumka Sigaba, Methodist Church of Southern Africa
       Jaine Rao, Climate Healers
       Dr. Sailesh Rao, Climate Healers
       Mark Naicker, Catholic Youth
       Stuart Scott, Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change
       Paddy Meskin, President WCRP South Africa / Secretariat for KZN IRC
       Moulana Abdullah, Inter Religious Council on Peace - Tanzania
       Mahomed Yussuf, Sunni Jumait
       Maulana Mahomed Ebrahim, Sunni Jamait Ulama
       Priscilla McDougal, United Church of Christ
       Shamim David, Inter Religious Council of Zambia
       Mantanta Wasim, Inter Religious Council of Zambia
       Sheikh Idrisa Mtembu, Muslim Association of Malawi
       Sheikh Saleem Banda, World Assembly of Muslim Youth
       Adam Makwinda, World Assembly of Muslim Youth
       Fred Kruger, National Religious Coalition on Creation Care

        

48895. Bob Loblaw at 02:48 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin: "considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment."

       "Correct" is not a binary choice (yes, no) in science. No data are perfect. They don't have to be perfect in order to be useful. Even when they are already good enough to be useful, it is possible to get greater utility by improving the analysis.

       You seem to be falling into the "if we don't know everything, we know nothing" mindset where certain individuals in the fake skeptic camp play the uncertainty monster. If you waited until your knoweldge was perfect before doing anything, you wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning.

48896. KR at 02:48 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin - Regarding your complaints on adjustments, I'll just restate something I posted on one of the "skeptic" blogs on those very adjustments:

       It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.

       If you don't agree with adjustments for various biases, you're going to have to address them directly - regarding the particular adjustment, with support for your opinion - before such criticism can be taken seriously. 

       Otherwise, such complaints are just arm-waving. 

48897. Composer99 at 02:43 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin:

       IMO your point is discounted because you have presented no evidence to support it. Only suspicions based on your perception of the adjustments and a graph from Climate4You.

       There is no a priori reason to expect that adjustments to NASA GISS historical temperature data must be "fair and balanced". Only that they (a) address identifiable problems with the data and (b) are methodologically sound.

       If you have evidence that one or both of (a) or (b) is not the case, or can link to someone else who does, then by all means bring it to the attention of the pros here (and even better, bring it to NASA's attention).

       But you are going to need more than your personal suspicions as expressed in:

       If the data is/was so accurate, why does Hansen keep changing it? And why are ALL changes in the direction that support his belief? You would think that at least some "mistakes" were made in the other direction, no?

       or

       I'd say a 10% adjustment is rather large, considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment.

       I don't have enough info regarding the algorithm to say anything more about it, except the general observation, again, that the chances of all the adjustments being on "the correct side of the belief paradine" can't be 100% (sorry - 99%).

       (By the way, can you please provide some kind of substantiation that "everyone thought" the historical data was correct before the adjustment? There's a rather large difference between thinking that data is 100% correct, and thinking it is correct enough.

48898. dana1981 at 02:24 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       As a general rule I would ask that people read the post carefully before criticizing it.

       Kevin - please read the "What is the Potential Climate Impact of Keystone XL?" section more carefully.

       jyushchyshyn - nowhere in this post did I 'blame Alberta'.  I merely talked about the Keystone impact on global and Canadian emissions.

       Arguments that "we'll just keep burning oil anyway" miss the point.  We have a choice whether or not to continue burning all of our fossil fuel reserves.  We need to choose not to.  Exploiting the unconventional tar sands oil is the wrong choice.  There is no reason to do it, and doing so has very negative consequences both for Canada and the world in general.  Exploiting the tar sands just brings some revenue to Canada at the expense of the global economy and the Canadian environment (and potentially the American environment, if the pipeline is built and inevitably leaks).

48899. Dikran Marsupial at 02:18 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin, if everybody thought the data were right before the adjustment they would have stopped working on it and the adjustment would not have been made. The adjustment was made precisely because of the research of climatologists who work to understand the limitations of the data.

       Your argument is a straw man, the climatologists know that the data were collected for purposes other than climatology (i.e. weather forecasting, which has differing requirements), and research on dealing with these issues is ongoing (perform a google scholar search on "homogenisation" of station data.).

       Now just because the data are not perfect, that does not imply that they are unreliable, as the uncertainties are quantifiable, even if they are not displayed in every graph you see.

48900. Kevin8233 at 01:53 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

        Your claim that "ALL changes in the direction that support his belief?" is demonstrably false. In Jan 2010, an adjustment resulted in a decrease in global trend of 0.005^oC/century 

       So, my point is discounted because the changes are only 10%, yet, I am proven false because of one adjustment that is less than 3% of the overall adjustments?  That doesn't seem right.

        

       My overall point though, and the thread topic, is the reliability of the data.  I'd say a 10% adjustment is rather large, considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment.

        

       I don't have enough info regarding the algorithm to say anything more about it, except the general observation, again, that the chances of all the adjustments being on "the correct side of the belief paradine" can't be 100% (sorry - 99%).

Prev  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  983  984  985  Next