Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
DapperDanMan said:
With error bars included in the consideration, as any analysis should do, it's statistically indistinguishable from 2015. And that was as hot as it was because somebody thought it would be a good idea to change numbers in a spreadhseet for sea surface temperature by swapping in less accurate and heat-contaminated ship intake values instead of more accurate and less contaminated buoy values. Cool! So, not hotter than 2015 in terms of what we can actually say, and certainly not the hottest year ever not least as records cover a pathetically short period of time. Data on historical climate optima place them hotter than claims for recent and current years.
turbobloke said:
With error bars included in the consideration, as any analysis should do, it's statistically indistinguishable from 2015. And that was as hot as it was because somebody thought it would be a good idea to change numbers in a spreadhseet for sea surface temperature by swapping in less accurate and heat-contaminated ship intake values instead of more accurate and less contaminated buoy values. Cool!
So, not hotter than 2015 in terms of what we can actually say, and certainly not the hottest year ever not least as records cover a pathetically short period of time. Data on historical climate optima place them hotter than claims for recent and current years.
It does indeed seem line a good idea to avoid using sea surface temps gathered via ship intake valves. It seems that over the last 20 years they have added a cooling bias to the SST record - taking them out = bye bye pause (in that record at least)So, not hotter than 2015 in terms of what we can actually say, and certainly not the hottest year ever not least as records cover a pathetically short period of time. Data on historical climate optima place them hotter than claims for recent and current years.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e160120...
As for whether or not this year or last year was hottest well, the stats suggest it probably was but so what. Surely more important is that 15 out of the last 16 years are at the top of the chart?
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
With error bars included in the consideration, as any analysis should do, it's statistically indistinguishable from 2015. And that was as hot as it was because somebody thought it would be a good idea to change numbers in a spreadhseet for sea surface temperature by swapping in less accurate and heat-contaminated ship intake values instead of more accurate and less contaminated buoy values. Cool!
So, not hotter than 2015 in terms of what we can actually say, and certainly not the hottest year ever not least as records cover a pathetically short period of time. Data on historical climate optima place them hotter than claims for recent and current years.
It does indeed seem line a good idea to avoid using sea surface temps gathered via ship intake valves. It seems that over the last 20 years they have added a cooling bias to the SST record - taking them out = bye bye pause (in that record at least)So, not hotter than 2015 in terms of what we can actually say, and certainly not the hottest year ever not least as records cover a pathetically short period of time. Data on historical climate optima place them hotter than claims for recent and current years.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e160120...
As for whether or not this year or last year was hottest well, the stats suggest it probably was but so what. Surely more important is that 15 OUT OF THE LAST 16 YEARS are at the top of the chart?
The Beeb today:-
Climate change: Data shows 2016 likely to be warmest year yet
Temperature data for 2016 shows it is likely to have edged ahead of 2015 as the world's warmest year.
Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were about 0.07 degrees Celsius above the 2015 mark.
Although the Met Office increase was within the margin of error, Nasa says that 2016 was the third year in a row to break the record.
The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists, but the main factor was human emissions of CO2.
The latest conclusions won't come as a much of a shock to observers, as the likely outcome was trailed heavily towards the end of last year.
Usual verbal garbage. Non story really, and why is Climate Change in the headline? Weather isn't climate.
Climate change: Data shows 2016 likely to be warmest year yet
Temperature data for 2016 shows it is likely to have edged ahead of 2015 as the world's warmest year.
Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were about 0.07 degrees Celsius above the 2015 mark.
Although the Met Office increase was within the margin of error, Nasa says that 2016 was the third year in a row to break the record.
The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists, but the main factor was human emissions of CO2.
The latest conclusions won't come as a much of a shock to observers, as the likely outcome was trailed heavily towards the end of last year.
Usual verbal garbage. Non story really, and why is Climate Change in the headline? Weather isn't climate.
Edited by robinessex on Thursday 19th January 09:04
PRTVR said:
Added to the above was a reference by the BBC that the Arctic was above 0, but no mention of the snow in Spain, they really would make goebbels proud.
Same again with the unusually cold weather in Thailand from autumn through to the new year. Somebody needs to do a Karl on a land temperature spreadsheet asafp. The science deserves it.
Hi Durbs. I'm a skeptic as you know but I like to at least try and see both sides of this (as the last thing I would want would be to find out at some future date that I've aligned myself with a bunch of flat earth style tinfoil hatted loons) so maybe you can help me out. Let's assume that the above graph is 100% legit - what it shows is a trend of <0.2 degrees warming per decade (and it doesn't cover the recent rapid cooling) - what I can't get my head around is that this is enough to be getting in a flap about? I honestly don't think I could physically notice a temperature difference of less than a few degrees - this could take over a century at current rates! What am I missing?
durbster said:
Latest models vs observations graph:
(built on corrupt data and lies, obviously).
Irony?(built on corrupt data and lies, obviously).
Latest?
Is that after pre-existing mismatches have been ironed out using the hand of man? A sort of manmade warming but bogus all the same.
Where's the pause...not, perhaps, removed by a fortuitous switch from more accurate and less heat-contaminated buoy readings (lower) to less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship engine intake readings (higher) which could be seen as corrupting the data for political reasons - and is so seen, outside The Team.
Also the models have been fiddlefactored so many times now to give good readings on the headline measure shown (once SST is corrupted, and the near-surface data is little better) but there's no such match on vertical heat distribution or antarctic ice or any of the other variables that are out of kilter.
Can you or anyone indicate via established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide that the manufactured correlation isn't chance, or temporary? Of course not.
Pre-ship intake shenanigans and any other allied fiddlefactoring:
As mentioned in an earlier post, where's the "latest" rapid cooling post-El Nino on that latest graphic? On the UAH LTT data plot below, all three major peaks are natural El Ninos.
It's going to be tricky over the next decade or three with no easy ship intakes trick; we need to prepare for something even more blatant.
turbobloke said:
...Where's the pause...not, perhaps, removed by a fortuitous switch from more accurate and less heat-contaminated buoy readings (lower) to less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship engine intake readings (higher) which could be seen as corrupting the data for political reasons - and is so seen, outside The Team.
Also the models have been fiddlefactored so many times now to give good readings on the headline measure shown (once SST is corrupted, and the near-surface data is little better) but there's no such match on vertical heat distribution or antarctic ice or any of the other variables that are out of kilter...
...It's going to be tricky over the next decade or three with no easy ship intakes trick; we need to prepare for something even more blatant.
(apols for selective quoting - done just to save space) Also the models have been fiddlefactored so many times now to give good readings on the headline measure shown (once SST is corrupted, and the near-surface data is little better) but there's no such match on vertical heat distribution or antarctic ice or any of the other variables that are out of kilter...
...It's going to be tricky over the next decade or three with no easy ship intakes trick; we need to prepare for something even more blatant.
You keep on about the use of ship engine intake data providing an upward bias in the SST but, as shown in the paper I referenced above, that's not correct. It appears that the ship intake data and associated bias adjustments used when incorporating them into the wider SST data set have, in fact, induced a cooling bias.
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
...Where's the pause...not, perhaps, removed by a fortuitous switch from more accurate and less heat-contaminated buoy readings (lower) to less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship engine intake readings (higher) which could be seen as corrupting the data for political reasons - and is so seen, outside The Team.
Also the models have been fiddlefactored so many times now to give good readings on the headline measure shown (once SST is corrupted, and the near-surface data is little better) but there's no such match on vertical heat distribution or antarctic ice or any of the other variables that are out of kilter...
...It's going to be tricky over the next decade or three with no easy ship intakes trick; we need to prepare for something even more blatant.
(apols for selective quoting - done just to save space) Also the models have been fiddlefactored so many times now to give good readings on the headline measure shown (once SST is corrupted, and the near-surface data is little better) but there's no such match on vertical heat distribution or antarctic ice or any of the other variables that are out of kilter...
...It's going to be tricky over the next decade or three with no easy ship intakes trick; we need to prepare for something even more blatant.
You keep on about the use of ship engine intake data providing an upward bias in the SST but, as shown in the paper I referenced above, that's not correct. It appears that the ship intake data and associated bias adjustments used when incorporating them into the wider SST data set have, in fact, induced a cooling bias.
Lotus 50 said:
It does indeed seem line a good idea to avoid using sea surface temps gathered via ship intake valves. It seems that over the last 20 years they have added a cooling bias to the SST record - taking them out = bye bye pause (in that record at least)
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e160120...
As for whether or not this year or last year was hottest well, the stats suggest it probably was but so what. Surely more important is that 15 out of the last 16 years are at the top of the chart?
First, thanks to Lotus for actually including a link we can check!http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e160120...
As for whether or not this year or last year was hottest well, the stats suggest it probably was but so what. Surely more important is that 15 out of the last 16 years are at the top of the chart?
I've read it about 73 times, and here is what I don't follow.
The paper says "Modern ship-based measurements ... tend to generate temperature readings around 0.12°C higher than those of buoys, whose sensors are directly in contact with the ocean’s surface".
If the sea was 9 degrees, the ship would record 9.12
If 10 years later, the sea was 10 degrees, the ship would record 10.12
The temperature change is the same? 1 degree? so there is no "change in warming"?
If you switch from one method of measuring to the other, there is a one-off change of + / - 0.12, irrespective of the timescale
So the "pause" of 12 years should still be a pause, give or take 0.12 degrees C over 12 years?
Or, where am I going wrong?
OK, what I gather has happened is that the people bringing in the engine room intake data into the sea surface temp data knew that there was a bias and took it into account in bringing the data in. However in very simplified terms it seems that over time the proportion of data from ships has reduced relative to the numbers of buoys and so over time so the bias appears to have been increasingly over-corrected. It's more complex than this because the proportions of data sources may vary spatially as well as over time but I think the above captures the general idea.
Lotus 50 said:
OK, what I gather has happened is that the people bringing in the engine room intake data into the sea surface temp data knew that there was a bias and took it into account in bringing the data in. However in very simplified terms it seems that over time the proportion of data from ships has reduced relative to the numbers of buoys and so over time so the bias appears to have been increasingly over-corrected. It's more complex than this because the proportions of data sources may vary spatially as well as over time but I think the above captures the general idea.
So to sum up, it's a pathetically useless/unreliable method to record the temperature of the Sea then, isn't it. And we're using this data to screw up the planet?robinessex said:
Lotus 50 said:
OK, what I gather has happened is that the people bringing in the engine room intake data into the sea surface temp data knew that there was a bias and took it into account in bringing the data in. However in very simplified terms it seems that over time the proportion of data from ships has reduced relative to the numbers of buoys and so over time so the bias appears to have been increasingly over-corrected. It's more complex than this because the proportions of data sources may vary spatially as well as over time but I think the above captures the general idea.
So to sum up, it's a pathetically useless/unreliable method to record the temperature of the Sea then, isn't it. And we're using this data to screw up the planet?The things that is somewhat troubling to me about the entire basis of climate science is that it really cannot be fully scientific. There is no way to recreate an experiment and re-measure the results, The only option if to re-interpret existing records of stuff or re-adjust and then re-interpret existing records. Even future records will be re-interpretations.
If we were not dealing with very tiny differences (in terms of the way we understand that which we attempt to measure) there could be some obvious validity to ringing alarm bells but for such tiny measurements of implied average trend difference in a overall poorly understood chaotic system I am somewhat dubious.
If one is looking for multiple miniscule differences in a system's performance that, when added together, have a material effect on results from the whole package and a repeatable result then tiny differences may well matter. For example if you want to make an electronic device more battery usage efficient saving a few hundredths here and there for each of 1 hundred components may make a difference that can be verified, claimed in the sales literature and, just possibly, observed by users.
Better still it would be possible to repeat the measurement by re-sampling periodically to ensure that the components being used, possibly from different sources, were reasonably consistent. And that, I guess, is about as consistent as as one can be at recreating a potentially chaotic model in a lab test environment.
The fundamental problem with AGW science is that is will never be possible to test the experimental theory.
Thus the scientific components of the research, some of which may be testable and others not, is not as clearly "scientific" as most people understand from the embedded mental image of people wearing white lab coats.
That means that politicians control the response and they enjoy the flexibility the various explanations coming out of the science establishment offer them to make names for themselves, create positions that offer them wealth and offer them an opportunity to control their populace via taxation and regulation. There is no way any scientific influence can move against that and retain its influence, in my opinion.
Unquestioning support for what is claimed to be established science, though untested in my view as outlined above considering how critical this whole subject seems to be for political decisions around the world, is in effect a vote to let politicians do whatever they want to do. Or more likely the politician's advisers will be the dictators of future directions and directives.
I can't think of anything more dangerous.
LongQ said:
It does seem to be a very opaque paper despite (or because it was) returned twice (iirc from the information available via the link) by the reviewers. Or maybe it was always that opaque and only experts in the field of the various data sources and their nuances can understand the underlying arguments for justification clearly?
The things that is somewhat troubling to me about the entire basis of climate science is that it really cannot be fully scientific. There is no way to recreate an experiment and re-measure the results, The only option if to re-interpret existing records of stuff or re-adjust and then re-interpret existing records. Even future records will be re-interpretations.
If we were not dealing with very tiny differences (in terms of the way we understand that which we attempt to measure) there could be some obvious validity to ringing alarm bells but for such tiny measurements of implied average trend difference in a overall poorly understood chaotic system I am somewhat dubious.
If one is looking for multiple miniscule differences in a system's performance that, when added together, have a material effect on results from the whole package and a repeatable result then tiny differences may well matter. For example if you want to make an electronic device more battery usage efficient saving a few hundredths here and there for each of 1 hundred components may make a difference that can be verified, claimed in the sales literature and, just possibly, observed by users.
Better still it would be possible to repeat the measurement by re-sampling periodically to ensure that the components being used, possibly from different sources, were reasonably consistent. And that, I guess, is about as consistent as as one can be at recreating a potentially chaotic model in a lab test environment.
The fundamental problem with AGW science is that is will never be possible to test the experimental theory.
Thus the scientific components of the research, some of which may be testable and others not, is not as clearly "scientific" as most people understand from the embedded mental image of people wearing white lab coats.
That means that politicians control the response and they enjoy the flexibility the various explanations coming out of the science establishment offer them to make names for themselves, create positions that offer them wealth and offer them an opportunity to control their populace via taxation and regulation. There is no way any scientific influence can move against that and retain its influence, in my opinion.
Unquestioning support for what is claimed to be established science, though untested in my view as outlined above considering how critical this whole subject seems to be for political decisions around the world, is in effect a vote to let politicians do whatever they want to do. Or more likely the politician's advisers will be the dictators of future directions and directives.
I can't think of anything more dangerous.
I don't think you can read too much into the peer-review process as quoted (all I can see is that it's been reviewed by 2 peers plus the Dep Editor and Associate Editor which is pretty par for the course). I take your point about not being able to re-create experiments etc but this isn't based on just one experiment or one data set. There's lots different sources of information on changes to climate and it is possible to test the theories being put forwards. That's exactly what has been done with the computer modelling systems that are then used to provide projections as to what might happen in the future. The directly measured, globally averaged temperature records are based on different data sets and are checked and even re-sampled in the way that you suggest to make sure they are consistent (indeed that's what the paper I quoted is basically about). I think I see what you mean when you say that the amendments of the data are interpretations but they aren't really, the use of the word 'interpretations' fails to take into account the fact that the changes are based on scientifically justified analysis - not just because someone doesn't like the trend that a data set may show. Similarly the computer models used to provide projections of future climate under different scenarios have been tested against historical records to confirm their skill prior to making projections. In doing so the only plausible explanation for the recent increases in temperature is the forcing arising from greenhouse gas emissions. Again, different models have been developed in parallel by different organisations and show the same broad scale trends - the warming is due to changes in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Sure the uncertainties in these modelled outputs increases over time and as the analysis is attempted at increased detail (where models need to be increasingly complex and the systems more chaotic) but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Alongside the numerical modelling there's also a host of work being done to examine paleo climate to try to understand how the planet has responded to similar conditions in the past (and yes the Earth's atmosphere has contained this much CO2 and more in the past, and it's been hotter and colder too) which provides, at least in part, some verification of the changes projected by the numerical models. I posted a paper on here (or possibly in the politics thread) not very long ago showing work done to compare historic CO2 levels with sea level and this suggested that the last time CO2 levels matched current levels that sea level was up to 9m higher than it is now. Here's another one that looked at paleo sea surface temps, again suggesting that there will be an increase in sea level of between 6-9m (and no I don't just read science it's just for convenience and they provide pdfs of the full paper): The things that is somewhat troubling to me about the entire basis of climate science is that it really cannot be fully scientific. There is no way to recreate an experiment and re-measure the results, The only option if to re-interpret existing records of stuff or re-adjust and then re-interpret existing records. Even future records will be re-interpretations.
If we were not dealing with very tiny differences (in terms of the way we understand that which we attempt to measure) there could be some obvious validity to ringing alarm bells but for such tiny measurements of implied average trend difference in a overall poorly understood chaotic system I am somewhat dubious.
If one is looking for multiple miniscule differences in a system's performance that, when added together, have a material effect on results from the whole package and a repeatable result then tiny differences may well matter. For example if you want to make an electronic device more battery usage efficient saving a few hundredths here and there for each of 1 hundred components may make a difference that can be verified, claimed in the sales literature and, just possibly, observed by users.
Better still it would be possible to repeat the measurement by re-sampling periodically to ensure that the components being used, possibly from different sources, were reasonably consistent. And that, I guess, is about as consistent as as one can be at recreating a potentially chaotic model in a lab test environment.
The fundamental problem with AGW science is that is will never be possible to test the experimental theory.
Thus the scientific components of the research, some of which may be testable and others not, is not as clearly "scientific" as most people understand from the embedded mental image of people wearing white lab coats.
That means that politicians control the response and they enjoy the flexibility the various explanations coming out of the science establishment offer them to make names for themselves, create positions that offer them wealth and offer them an opportunity to control their populace via taxation and regulation. There is no way any scientific influence can move against that and retain its influence, in my opinion.
Unquestioning support for what is claimed to be established science, though untested in my view as outlined above considering how critical this whole subject seems to be for political decisions around the world, is in effect a vote to let politicians do whatever they want to do. Or more likely the politician's advisers will be the dictators of future directions and directives.
I can't think of anything more dangerous.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276...
Thankfully there's a significant lag between increased surface temps and sea level change (100s of years?) but nonetheless the likely impacts of a rise of this magnitude suggests that we need to make sure we develop a more precise and less uncertain understanding of what is going to happen if we continue to change the composition of the atmosphere. In the UK a rise of this level probably means that the the Fens/Broads, Hull, significant areas of Essex/the Thames Estuary and London and Somerset go underwater.
So put more directly I don't agree with your suggestion that climate science isn't 'scientific'. Its is often cross-disciplinary that shouldn't be an issue (the 'geographers' do talk to and work with physicists, chemists, mathematicians, statisticians etc) - in fact if the issue is wider than one scientific discipline then this is a very good thing.
In terms of the political response to it, I agree with some of the points you're making. Scientific analysis is used to inform policy but other factors come into play as well and the political response may well not be the same as one based purely on science - but I don't agree that there is no way scientific influence can move against a political response (there are plenty of examples of this happening as well as it failing). It's important to question science and to review it and to continue to do so in the future (and just as important if not more so to do the same to the political responses to it!) but to suggest that climate science isn't established is nonsense.
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 21st January 15:38
Lotus 50 said:
robinessex said:
So to sum up, it's a pathetically useless/unreliable method to record the temperature of the Sea then, isn't it. And we're using this data to screw up the planet?
Nope. And just how are we using the data to screw up the planet?Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff