Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
I have never read the NTZ info, I'd prefer not to comment on it.
The sun determines our climate, agreed.
Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?
there may be a scientific consensus on this. does not mean it is correct. uv light output varies by a huge amount . the largest biomass of anything on the planet is plankton in the oceans. well worth having a read of the effect of differing levels of uv light upon plankton . The sun determines our climate, agreed.
Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?
uv light and ozone is another known,known with unknown long term climate effects. as far as the sun is concerned how much do we really know about how it functions ?
wc98 said:
Kawasicki said:
I have never read the NTZ info, I'd prefer not to comment on it.
The sun determines our climate, agreed.
Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?
there may be a scientific consensus on this. does not mean it is correct. uv light output varies by a huge amount . the largest biomass of anything on the planet is plankton in the oceans. well worth having a read of the effect of differing levels of uv light upon plankton . The sun determines our climate, agreed.
Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?
uv light and ozone is another known,known with unknown long term climate effects. as far as the sun is concerned how much do we really know about how it functions ?
Kawasicki said:
wc98 said:
Kawasicki said:
I have never read the NTZ info, I'd prefer not to comment on it.
The sun determines our climate, agreed.
Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?
there may be a scientific consensus on this. does not mean it is correct. uv light output varies by a huge amount . the largest biomass of anything on the planet is plankton in the oceans. well worth having a read of the effect of differing levels of uv light upon plankton . The sun determines our climate, agreed.
Changes in the sun cause climate change, sometimes causing global warming, sometimes global cooling. The scientific consensus is that these changes are not powerful enough to create a detectable change in the Earth's surface temp, i.e. that the Sun is a weak driver of climate change. Agreed?
uv light and ozone is another known,known with unknown long term climate effects. as far as the sun is concerned how much do we really know about how it functions ?
wc98 said:
the biggest elephant in the room when talking of any notion of "global temperature" is humidity . a parcel of air at near 100% humidity contains a lot more energy than another parcel of air at 20% humidity. as this is a variable changing constantly all over the planet i have a hard time believing anyone has a clue what the "global temperature" is.
this is before you even look at why the argo bouy data producing cooler results than expected were thrown out whilst retaining other bouys that were reporting ocean temps from the middle of africa at one point. climate science data selection techniques appear to be a little out of sync with other disciplines , to put it mildly.
As I read more into this the temperature is being used as a proxy for heat in the system, particularly as they are interested in the change rather than the absolute value. The methods used rely heavily on statistical techniques and any one series of time based values can not necessarily be directly compared to another because the way the 'global' temperature is calculated is different in each analysis. It does not mean any particular result is wrong or right, what is interesting is if the error bars for two data sets overlap or not...this is before you even look at why the argo bouy data producing cooler results than expected were thrown out whilst retaining other bouys that were reporting ocean temps from the middle of africa at one point. climate science data selection techniques appear to be a little out of sync with other disciplines , to put it mildly.
I am not aware of the argo bouy data being thrown out, I know that some analysis adjusted it in line with ship intake data, remembering that it is changes that are being looked at this can be valid. Note also that the historic temperature data from ice cores etc. is not a direct reading, the temperatures are inferred from physical properties persent in the ice by reference to ice cores where there are direct temperature readings to create a 'calibration'.
As a simple model imagine you have a hundred thermometers, you take ten and measure their output over a range of temperatures against a known instrument calibrated to a given uncertainty. You can now use the sample set of ten to calculate an error window at a specified uncertainty level to apply to any reading you get from them. You can now put all hundred in a tank and use their output to measure the temperature of the tank and assign an error to that value, statistically the error range at a specific uncertainty will be lower than that you would get with just ten sensors. Now, you can choose to trust me on this, I used to calibrate equipment for a living to UKAS standards, or you can go and study the subject, do the relevant work and prove it for yourself. I am in the same boat with the climate research papers I read, I can understand them to a certain level then have to decide to trust the work and knowledge of the contributors or not.
One of the studies I read, referenced above iirc, validated their results by randomly removing increasing percentages of readings and by randomly salting the readings with outlying values. This then allowed them to calculate how robust their results were based on how much change could be caused by incorrect readings.
To make it clear I in no way fully support the Climate Change adgenda, all I am saying is that there is science going on in climate science, but anyone saying it is 'settled' insults the people working on it by implying they are prophets and not scientists.
Then of course there is the modeling of future climate, I have yet to dig deeply into that, at the moment if anyone wants to call that settled then please go ahead...
My bias and I use that word deliberately, is that the modelling is still to be proved, for me 'valid' science is that which agrees with known observations and has been reached with application of some rigour such that it does not need tweaking with each set of new observations.
Toltec said:
wc98 said:
the biggest elephant in the room when talking of any notion of "global temperature" is humidity . a parcel of air at near 100% humidity contains a lot more energy than another parcel of air at 20% humidity. as this is a variable changing constantly all over the planet i have a hard time believing anyone has a clue what the "global temperature" is.
this is before you even look at why the argo bouy data producing cooler results than expected were thrown out whilst retaining other bouys that were reporting ocean temps from the middle of africa at one point. climate science data selection techniques appear to be a little out of sync with other disciplines , to put it mildly.
As I read more into this the temperature is being used as a proxy for heat in the system, particularly as they are interested in the change rather than the absolute value. The methods used rely heavily on statistical techniques and any one series of time based values can not necessarily be directly compared to another because the way the 'global' temperature is calculated is different in each analysis. It does not mean any particular result is wrong or right, what is interesting is if the error bars for two data sets overlap or not...this is before you even look at why the argo bouy data producing cooler results than expected were thrown out whilst retaining other bouys that were reporting ocean temps from the middle of africa at one point. climate science data selection techniques appear to be a little out of sync with other disciplines , to put it mildly.
I am not aware of the argo bouy data being thrown out, I know that some analysis adjusted it in line with ship intake data, remembering that it is changes that are being looked at this can be valid. Note also that the historic temperature data from ice cores etc. is not a direct reading, the temperatures are inferred from physical properties persent in the ice by reference to ice cores where there are direct temperature readings to create a 'calibration'.
As a simple model imagine you have a hundred thermometers, you take ten and measure their output over a range of temperatures against a known instrument calibrated to a given uncertainty. You can now use the sample set of ten to calculate an error window at a specified uncertainty level to apply to any reading you get from them. You can now put all hundred in a tank and use their output to measure the temperature of the tank and assign an error to that value, statistically the error range at a specific uncertainty will be lower than that you would get with just ten sensors. Now, you can choose to trust me on this, I used to calibrate equipment for a living to UKAS standards, or you can go and study the subject, do the relevant work and prove it for yourself. I am in the same boat with the climate research papers I read, I can understand them to a certain level then have to decide to trust the work and knowledge of the contributors or not.
One of the studies I read, referenced above iirc, validated their results by randomly removing increasing percentages of readings and by randomly salting the readings with outlying values. This then allowed them to calculate how robust their results were based on how much change could be caused by incorrect readings.
To make it clear I in no way fully support the Climate Change adgenda, all I am saying is that there is science going on in climate science, but anyone saying it is 'settled' insults the people working on it by implying they are prophets and not scientists.
Then of course there is the modeling of future climate, I have yet to dig deeply into that, at the moment if anyone wants to call that settled then please go ahead...
My bias and I use that word deliberately, is that the modelling is still to be proved, for me 'valid' science is that which agrees with known observations and has been reached with application of some rigour such that it does not need tweaking with each set of new observations.
robinessex said:
Great!! Now, what does the 'average temperature of the planet' mean then?
Not a lot, but they aren't just adding up the readings and taking an average. The approach appears to create averaged values in a mesh and then average the changes in those values over time. This is evaluated for different mesh sizes and positions to check the results.As raised earlier water holds more heat than air, humid more than dry air, and state transitions between ice, water and vapour require or release more energy than simple changes of temperature. For me this makes it difficult to work out what the reported changes really mean.
Which is a very long way of saying that I think their measurement methodology is good science, but what it means is not at all clear to me.
Toltec said:
robinessex said:
Great!! Now, what does the 'average temperature of the planet' mean then?
Not a lot, but they aren't just adding up the readings and taking an average. The approach appears to create averaged values in a mesh and then average the changes in those values over time. This is evaluated for different mesh sizes and positions to check the results.As raised earlier water holds more heat than air, humid more than dry air, and state transitions between ice, water and vapour require or release more energy than simple changes of temperature. For me this makes it difficult to work out what the reported changes really mean.
Which is a very long way of saying that I think their measurement methodology is good science, but what it means is not at all clear to me.
I can see that the change in average temperature could be meaningful.
If it is calculated in a way that allows it to be used as a proxy for either a change in weather patterns or total heat retained that affects the climate.
If they do that? I have no idea. How they could do that I have some idea on the physics side, but not the climate side.
You are right though, it is mainly used as a CC marketing tool.
If it is calculated in a way that allows it to be used as a proxy for either a change in weather patterns or total heat retained that affects the climate.
If they do that? I have no idea. How they could do that I have some idea on the physics side, but not the climate side.
You are right though, it is mainly used as a CC marketing tool.
Edited by Toltec on Thursday 2nd March 10:42
Arctic/Antarctic as a bellweather for both sides on the climate change front has always a tricky subject but this year might be grabbed by both sides.
The Arctic has general low values for winter, but due to that region being landlocked so far these extents have no real scientific weighting one way or another at this time.
However the Antarctic has had a massive swing from lots of ice to less than lots of ice in less than 3 seasons, which is interesting. It had the earliest summer maximum ever in August and now is below the normal curve.
Note that I am not saying this is due to AGW, I doubt anyone knows, but it is interesting and worth keeping an eye on,
you can get lots of detail here,
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
The Arctic has general low values for winter, but due to that region being landlocked so far these extents have no real scientific weighting one way or another at this time.
However the Antarctic has had a massive swing from lots of ice to less than lots of ice in less than 3 seasons, which is interesting. It had the earliest summer maximum ever in August and now is below the normal curve.
Note that I am not saying this is due to AGW, I doubt anyone knows, but it is interesting and worth keeping an eye on,
you can get lots of detail here,
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
Also this is slightly worrying for polar watchers
As noted last year, the sensor that NSIDC had been using for sea ice extent, the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F17 satellite, started to malfunction. In response, NSIDC switched to the SSMIS on the newer F18 satellite. Later, F17 recovered to normal function, though it recently started to malfunction again.
The DMSP series of sensors have been a stalwart of the sea ice extent time series, providing a continuous record since 1987. Connecting this to data from the earlier Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) results in a continuous record starting in 1979 of high quality and consistency. However, with the issues of F17 and last year’s loss of the newest sensor, F19, grave concerns have arisen about the long-term continuity of the passive microwave sea ice record. Only two DMSP sensors are currently fully capable for sea ice observations: F18 and the older F16; these two sensors have been operating for over 7 and 13 years respectively, well beyond their nominal 5-year lifetimes.
The only other similar sensor currently operating is the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2), which is approaching its 5-year design lifetime in May 2017. NSIDC is now evaluating AMSR2 data for integration into the sea ice data record if needed. Future satellite missions with passive microwave sensors are either planned or proposed by the U.S., JAXA, and ESA, but it is unlikely that a successor to the DMSP series and AMSR2 will be operational before 2022. This presents a growing risk of a gap in the sea ice extent record. Should such a gap occur, NSIDC and NASA would seek to fill the gap as much as possible with other types of sensors (e.g., visible or infrared sensors).
That is really a bad lot to be honest. Can Donald Tweet something ?
As noted last year, the sensor that NSIDC had been using for sea ice extent, the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F17 satellite, started to malfunction. In response, NSIDC switched to the SSMIS on the newer F18 satellite. Later, F17 recovered to normal function, though it recently started to malfunction again.
The DMSP series of sensors have been a stalwart of the sea ice extent time series, providing a continuous record since 1987. Connecting this to data from the earlier Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) results in a continuous record starting in 1979 of high quality and consistency. However, with the issues of F17 and last year’s loss of the newest sensor, F19, grave concerns have arisen about the long-term continuity of the passive microwave sea ice record. Only two DMSP sensors are currently fully capable for sea ice observations: F18 and the older F16; these two sensors have been operating for over 7 and 13 years respectively, well beyond their nominal 5-year lifetimes.
The only other similar sensor currently operating is the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2), which is approaching its 5-year design lifetime in May 2017. NSIDC is now evaluating AMSR2 data for integration into the sea ice data record if needed. Future satellite missions with passive microwave sensors are either planned or proposed by the U.S., JAXA, and ESA, but it is unlikely that a successor to the DMSP series and AMSR2 will be operational before 2022. This presents a growing risk of a gap in the sea ice extent record. Should such a gap occur, NSIDC and NASA would seek to fill the gap as much as possible with other types of sensors (e.g., visible or infrared sensors).
That is really a bad lot to be honest. Can Donald Tweet something ?
If one assumes that the Science is settled then there is probably no need to continue to expensively monitor ice extent.
One has the evidence one wants - why gather more?
On the other hand it might just be a monumental cockup that means that no one thought about the importance of replacing devices that had started to fail some time ago and in many cases are well past their design life.
But it's difficult - really difficult - to think that all of the smart people in the ice measurement wing of science would not have made a public song and dance about the potential risks ... so one has to lean towards a feeling that no one really wants complete continuity of the records. Or, maybe, any further records at all?
One has the evidence one wants - why gather more?
On the other hand it might just be a monumental cockup that means that no one thought about the importance of replacing devices that had started to fail some time ago and in many cases are well past their design life.
But it's difficult - really difficult - to think that all of the smart people in the ice measurement wing of science would not have made a public song and dance about the potential risks ... so one has to lean towards a feeling that no one really wants complete continuity of the records. Or, maybe, any further records at all?
LongQ said:
If one assumes that the Science is settled then there is probably no need to continue to expensively monitor ice extent.
The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood. The consequences of it, however, are not so further research is needed.And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as yourself.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
If one assumes that the Science is settled then there is probably no need to continue to expensively monitor ice extent.
The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood. The consequences of it, however, are not so further research is needed.And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as yourself.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
If one assumes that the Science is settled then there is probably no need to continue to expensively monitor ice extent.
The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood. The consequences of it, however, are not so further research is needed.And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as yourself.
I am really surprised, even by your standards of response.
Are your blinkers fully deployed and red mist of "hate the enemy" running rampant today?
durbster said:
The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood.
Mark Twain said:
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
I'll leave this hereEinion Yrth said:
durbster said:
LongQ said:
If one assumes that the Science is settled then there is probably no need to continue to expensively monitor ice extent.
The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood. The consequences of it, however, are not so further research is needed.And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as yourself.
I assume she's referring to the basic science that AGW is based on (e.g. the greenhouse effect), which I guess is about as "factual" as it gets scientifically speaking. But it's not a term you see being used by scientists, it's used far more often by people seeking straw men arguments.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood.
Mark Twain said:
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
I'll leave this heredurbster said:
And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as yourself.
Splutter! LongQ said:
durbster, you have surpassed yourself with that (alleged) observation, as has already been pointed out although I doubt you will understand it.
I am really surprised, even by your standards of response.
An absolutely astonishing statement wasn't it?I am really surprised, even by your standards of response.
durbster said:
I meant in these threads actually, but never mind as I didn't specify.
OK, I'm sure everyone here will give you the benefit of doubt based upon the omission of a couple of words that would have made your post much clearer.I think the one point that remains is that previously (on these type of threads here on PH) you've made it plain for all to see that you don't fully understand the concept of scientific principle.
What most of the 'AGW CO2 Sceptics' here are claiming is the science cannot be settled because the data is too corrupted, massaged and tortured into a politisised tax grab.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff