Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Variomatic]

plunker said:

Variomatic said:

Mike wallace has simply drawn attention to existing data

Indeed he has - and THAT'S ALL.

So, it's now for those who have decided to discount it, without any explanation I can find in the literarture (although that doesn't preclude there being one buried somewhere), to explain why the discounted it. Again, just saying "because e dont' trust it" isn't good enough.

plunker said:

Variomatic said:

that has been arbitrarily ignored by others

That is an unsubstantiated claim and if you don't know the field you have no business making it.

You should be more sceptical.

You (should) knnow as well as anyone that it's virtually impossible to say that data like that hasn't been assessed somewhere in the literature. Which is why scholarly articles are expected to carry references to other literature justifying their decisions to include / exclude such data.

No such references were included in either the article on the NOAA site, nor in the written congressional testimony by Feely. Again, had I made unreferrenced assumptions like that as a mere BSc student, I would have failed.

It's really quite simple:

in science, if you wish to exclude potentially relevant observational data then you have to explain or reference why it should be excluded. That's at the very heart of the scientific method. Just saying "it doesn't look right" or "it doesn't agree with our beliefs / models" isn't enough.

[plunker]

It's probably just a trivially self-evident thing that the old data isn't good enough for trend analysis. I don't foresee there being any developments in this story but until then I'm oot!

[Variomatic]

plunker said:

It's probably just a trivially self-evident thing that the old data isn't good enough for trend analysis. I don't foresee there being any developments in this story but until then I'm oot!

On the other hand, if the data was so obviously unreliable, it does beg the question as to why NOAA choose to publish it along with their other data for people to use and without any warnings regarding its limitations.

If they're knowingly publishing unreliable data, without warnings, then it necessarily brings all other data they publish into doubt. Which strongly suggests that they can't think it's all that unreliable

[hairykrishna]

It's the naive use of the available data that's the biggest problem with the analysis presented more than the inherent measurement error. The data includes the lat-long where the measurement was taken and the time. It's hardly NOAA's fault if someone discards that, averages all of the values for each year and calls the result 'Ocean pH'.

[Variomatic]

Seeing as the readings are point readings rather than gridded, a simple average is a perfectly acceptable method to use (at least for a first approximation) because the area of a point doesn't vary with latitude, unlike that of a grid cell. Obviously, longitude is immaterial in either case.

Statistically it's actually quite a good idea to use more-or-less random spatial sampling, as long as the samples are distributed reasonably across the globe, which in this case they are. NOAA provide quite a nice mapping facility in their World Ocean Database which will show the distribution if you care to look - it's at least as good as the spatial distribution of land weather stations.


eta: Although it's slightly worrying that their database returns more samples if you restrict latitude to, say, +/- 60 degrees than if you ask for the full pole-pole values. But that'll be an SQL query problem rather than a problem with the data itself.

Edited by Variomatic on Monday 29th December 07:59

[KareemK]

The Pope is now involved demonstrating that even God doesn't care for the nay-sayers arguments.

http://io9.com/the-pope-plans-to-rally-the-faithfu...



As a dyed in the wool atheist I'm now almost convinced of the anti AGW argument being as how I can't bear to align myself with the king of the fairy worshippers.

[hairykrishna]

Variomatic said:

Statistically it's actually quite a good idea to use more-or-less random spatial sampling, as long as the samples are distributed reasonably across the globe, which in this case they are. NOAA provide quite a nice mapping facility in their World Ocean Database which will show the distribution if you care to look - it's at least as good as the spatial distribution of land weather stations.

The measurements might be well distributed now. They weren't at the beginning of last century. Similarly with time; pH can vary a lot seasonally as can be seen in recent high resolution data. Comparing measurements at different times of the year as if they’re equivalent causes problems.
Anyway, I had a play with the data.
Mike Wallaces ‘ocean pH’ graph that’s lead to all the arm waving and fraud accusations;

It's actually not 100% clear how Wallace has selected the data for this plot. It's not just the unedited pool of all pH measurements from NOAA. All sub 200m depth measurements plotted below (Red is me, Blue is him. Zero values and pH >14 discarded);

Can get closer by constraining the values used to pH's>6 and <9 gets closer - I suppose these could be assumed to be limits for seawater;

The difference in 1910 is because there are a number of measurements all recorded as 8, no decimal places, which he has excluded. Presumably he judges these less reliable than the others. The other differences may be because I have later data included which he doesn’t, or he thresholds differently. What does this data look like with one standard deviation from the calculated mean ocean pH plotted? Like st.

Obviously Feeleys curve lies in this range. As does basically any other trend you care to draw. Using the data set in this way tells you nothing. The differences in seasonal and regional pH swamp whatever you’re looking for. This is even before you start worrying about the actual measurements themselves. To get a meaningful trend from direct instrumental measurements you need a fixed station, high frequency measurements and you trend for each location.

(Disclaimer – all analysis done haphazardly in R after a G+T or two. Not suitable for any serious use. Data extracted from Wallaces graph using Getdata Digitiser. Other pH data from NOAA, reformatted using an AWK script by Simon Filiatrault)

Edited by hairykrishna on Tuesday 30th December 00:08

[plunker]

hairykrishna said:

The difference in 1910 is because there are a number of measurements all recorded as 8, no decimal places, which he has excluded. Presumably he judges these less reliable than the others.

cuh - tha data-hiding huckster.

[plunker]

There's another post (no 3) on WUWT about the ocean pH data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/30/ph-sampling-...

And Mike Wallace makes an appearance in the comments.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/30/ph-sampling-...

[Variomatic]

Thanks for that, Hairy, I'm afraid I'm just too busy at the moment to look that closely at the data so your effort in doing so is appreciated.

I was also going to link to Willis E's post on UWT but I notice that Plunker's beaten me to it. He seems to reach more or less the same conclusion about the original post, although he does also make the (imo valid) point that the amount of data available can't really be dismissed out of hand without formally assessing its quality.

That's my biggest bugbear about the treatment by Feely et all - the apparently cavalier attitude to ignoring hard data without even a mention of its existence in a footnote.

That suggests either lack of awareness of related data, lack of rigor in assessing / dealing with it, or arrogant disregard for anything that might upset the apple cart. None of which have any place in science!

[Variomatic]

Another thought provoking post by Willis regarding ocean pH at WUWT today:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/a-neutral-vi...

Broadly he seems to conclude, with some working to back it up, that the historical data doesn't support a "pH phraud" claim. he also makes the valid points that the data may well hold useful information, but needs to be worked with carefully.

Personally, I'm quite pleased about that because (a) it's nice to see someone showing their working for a change and (b) the whole "fraud" thing around climate science is frankly absurd. Whether or not any element of fraud (which is a pretty strong allegation deserving pretty strong evidence) occurs in the politics surrounding it has nothing to do with any science and suggesting it does is counterproductive to any meaningful discusion!

On the the other hand, in the introduction / prologue to looking at the data he also makes some very interesting "common sense" observations about changes in pH generally and the fact that marine environments do seem to cope rather better than suggested with existing, and rapid, changes that dwarf any possible anthropogenic influence!

[TheExcession]

Variomatic said:

(b) the whole "fraud" thing around climate science is frankly absurd.

Absurd because the 'fraud' is plainly there or absurd because there is no fraud?

The 'Climategate' email leak certainly pushed me off the fence on that one. From the top to the bottom it was corrupt. Everyone from high ranking politicians down to the lowest data analysts were implicated as basically not having a fking clue what they were doing, looking at, or recommending.

If you'd said "(b) the whole 'religious' thing around climate science is frankly absurd." I'd be right there with you. But hey, religion/fraud one word is longer but the meanings are very similar.



Just to add;
Great to see people discussing the science again with out the need for three full time mods working 24/7 trying to keep the everyone in order.

[Lotus 50]

TheExcession said:

Absurd because the 'fraud' is plainly there or absurd because there is no fraud?

The 'Climategate' email leak certainly pushed me off the fence on that one. From the top to the bottom it was corrupt. Everyone from high ranking politicians down to the lowest data analysts were implicated as basically not having a fking clue what they were doing, looking at, or recommending.

If you'd said "(b) the whole 'religious' thing around climate science is frankly absurd." I'd be right there with you. But hey, religion/fraud one word is longer but the meanings are very similar.



Just to add;
Great to see people discussing the science again with out the need for three full time mods working 24/7 trying to keep the everyone in order.

Did you read the outcome of the inquiry into "Climategate"?

[chris watton]

Lotus 50 said:

Did you read the outcome of the inquiry into "Climategate"?

LOL

That is funny!

[Lotus 50]

Sorry, couldn't resist..!

As you say good to see the discussion actually looking at science, best not de-rail things.

[Variomatic]

TheExcession said:

Absurd because the 'fraud' is plainly there or absurd because there is no fraud?

Absurd because it implies some sort of concerted intent to, ummm, defraud people. You can't commit fraud by accident.

Which, given the level of attention the subject gets, necessarily implies a conspiracy of some sort which is, frankly, absurd because it's not required to expain what's happening. Lots of people, with lots of academic pride (or even arrogance), and with their entire reputations staked on the truth of AGW is all that's needed within the "science".

Outside the science there are undoubtedly leeches and parasites who probably couldn't care less about global warming but find it a convenient way to feather their nests - lots of feathers going spare thanks to all those bird-chopping windmills, after all!

[rovermorris999]

Surely this thread should end now, after all the science is settled or so we're told

[Gandahar]

rovermorris999 said:

Surely this thread should end now, after all the science is settled or so we're told

Totally agree

Close the thread and move on to something that has scientific debate rather than what this thread is.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 3rd January 18:46

[dickymint]

Gandahar said:

rovermorris999 said:

Surely this thread should end now, after all the science is settled or so we're told

Totally agree

Close the thread and move on to something that has scientific debate rather than what this thread is.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 3rd January 18:46

Yeh let's get back to the real stuff..........


"I've had my shiitbox diesel turbo thing superchipped just to get it into that space even quicker. I get the added benefit of a huge cloud of particles emissions every time I accelerate, especially when following cars with their headlights on. I just hope Boris is watching it from his mountain top lair somewhere near Westminster as I head into the signposted clean zone each day on the A2."

Care to explain your hypocrisy yet?

:mods please note my off topic icon:

Edited by dickymint on Saturday 3rd January 22:05

[grumbledoak]

dickymint said:

Care to explain your hypocrisy rather tedious trolling of this thread yet?

EFA.