Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
We discussed Christopher Booker's articles that were based on a couple of blog articles by Paul Homewood a couple of months ago and I commented:
"All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor, and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!"
...and I now see Booker has posted on Paul Homewoods's blog giving his "spectacular work" full credit for the GWPF inquiry:
"Paul, I thought you were far too self-effacing in your post on the launching of this high-powered GWPF inquiry into surface temperature adjustments, It was entirely prompted by the two articles I wrote in the Sunday Telegraph on 24n January and 7 February, which as I made clear at the time were directly inspired by your own spectacular work on South America and the Arctic. I specifically asked the Sunday Telegraph today to give links on their website to my two earlier pieces, since these make your crucial controbution to all this crystal clear.
. As you know, I think that the scandal of temperature fiddling is the “smoking gun’ of the entire AGW story, and it was ultimately your fine work which set this GWPF inquiry in train, We shall see what we shall see when the panel reports, but I know they are hoping that you will make a solid contribution to their investigation. We all owe you a big debt of gratitude."
So now the timeline is:
Blogger downloads a few choice graphs off Nasa's website and makes before/after blink-comparitor graphs> Booker declares it the biggest science scandal evah in the national press > GWPF launches 'high-powered' inquiry!
Great stuff
"All you have to do is copy some choice station graphs off Nasa's site, make a blink comparitor, and then have Christopher Booker declare it the bigggest science scandal evah and away we go!"
...and I now see Booker has posted on Paul Homewoods's blog giving his "spectacular work" full credit for the GWPF inquiry:
"Paul, I thought you were far too self-effacing in your post on the launching of this high-powered GWPF inquiry into surface temperature adjustments, It was entirely prompted by the two articles I wrote in the Sunday Telegraph on 24n January and 7 February, which as I made clear at the time were directly inspired by your own spectacular work on South America and the Arctic. I specifically asked the Sunday Telegraph today to give links on their website to my two earlier pieces, since these make your crucial controbution to all this crystal clear.
. As you know, I think that the scandal of temperature fiddling is the “smoking gun’ of the entire AGW story, and it was ultimately your fine work which set this GWPF inquiry in train, We shall see what we shall see when the panel reports, but I know they are hoping that you will make a solid contribution to their investigation. We all owe you a big debt of gratitude."
So now the timeline is:
Blogger downloads a few choice graphs off Nasa's website and makes before/after blink-comparitor graphs> Booker declares it the biggest science scandal evah in the national press > GWPF launches 'high-powered' inquiry!
Great stuff
Edited by plunker on Tuesday 28th April 12:38
plunker said:
Blogger downloads a few choice graphs off Nasa's website and makes before/after blink-comparitor graphs> Booker declares it the biggest science scandal evah in the national press > GWPF launches 'high-powered' inquiry!
Great stuff
Great stuff
- yawn*
As you should know denigrating the source with your implication that being a blogger somehow reduces credibility of the author OR is actually relevant to the comparison of data isn't really good form. If you can show that the GHCN, GSS and UHA data are in agreement then surely that's the story? If GHCN is out of step with the others then surely the questioning and investigation of the adjustments is utterly valid and to be lauded?
IainT said:
plunker said:
Blogger downloads a few choice graphs off Nasa's website and makes before/after blink-comparitor graphs> Booker declares it the biggest science scandal evah in the national press > GWPF launches 'high-powered' inquiry!
Great stuff
Great stuff
- yawn*
As you should know denigrating the source with your implication that being a blogger somehow reduces credibility of the author OR is actually relevant to the comparison of data isn't really good form. If you can show that the GHCN, GSS and UHA data are in agreement then surely that's the story? If GHCN is out of step with the others then surely the questioning and investigation of the adjustments is utterly valid and to be lauded?
IainT said:
If you can show that the GHCN, GSS and UHA data are in agreement then surely that's the story? If GHCN is out of step with the others then surely the questioning and investigation of the adjustments is utterly valid and to be lauded?
"The panel is asked to examine the preparation of data for the main surface temperature records: HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA and BEST."So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
plunker said:
"The panel is asked to examine the preparation of data for the main surface temperature records: HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA and BEST."
So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
BEST addressed some potential issues with treatment of the various data sets though, GWPF isn't that.So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
IIRC there are still some un-addressed, maybe un-addressable, issues with land-station coverage and the gridding of surface-measured data. Not withstanding the questionable ability to correctly adjust for UHI.
But we know this already.
At lease we have satellite data that's reliable but unfortunately not very lengthy.
BEST also looked at UHI effects. Plus they used a completely different way of interpolating the data so essentially looked at gridding too.
No harm in them doing their own analysis I suppose. I don't really see what they expect to add though given the number of people that have already trawled through the data sets.
No harm in them doing their own analysis I suppose. I don't really see what they expect to add though given the number of people that have already trawled through the data sets.
plunker said:
"The panel is asked to examine the preparation of data for the main surface temperature records: HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA and BEST."
So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
Auditing the auditors?So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
Seems reasonable to me as a theory. Is that not what science is about - replication? The more the merrier as far as I am concerned.
Sadly replication of much of modern science seems unable to attract "funding" now that science is more often a business than pure research. Perhaps that is why so many "discoveries" turn out to be nothing of the kind - but not until rather a long time after they have become main stream "fact".
plunker said:
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
I predict this will continue to be the case through the year until the tens of thousands of delegates have descended upon the by then toasted wasteland that we currently know as Paris and thrashed out a pathway by which the world takes a controlling influence over planetary climate. That would be a result from which the outcomes are unlikely to be good ... but I'm sure they will want to do it anyway. IainT said:
plunker said:
"The panel is asked to examine the preparation of data for the main surface temperature records: HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA and BEST."
So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
At lease we have satellite data that's reliable but unfortunately not very lengthy.So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
Even Carl Mears of RSS doesn't think the satellite data are the most reliable:
"A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)"
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-glob...
plunker said:
hairykrishna said:
No harm in them doing their own analysis I suppose. I don't really see what they expect to add though given the number of people that have already trawled through the data sets.
I imagine it's to improve public confidence in the data ahead of the Paris Summit.
plunker said:
IainT said:
plunker said:
"The panel is asked to examine the preparation of data for the main surface temperature records: HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA and BEST."
So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
At lease we have satellite data that's reliable but unfortunately not very lengthy.So no satellite data involved - I didn't see that coming.
Amusing that they include BEST which is the last attempt to address concerns over the surface temperature record. Auditing the auditors - very good. In a few years will there be another investigation into HadCRUT, GISS, NOAA, BEST and GWPF? Probably not.
Even Carl Mears of RSS doesn't think the satellite data are the most reliable:
"A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)"
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-glob...
Willy Nilly said:
I haven't read anything in this thread...
We use loads of energy and it gives off loads of heat in doing so, soooo how much has this warmed up the planet? It must have had some effect.
Space is cold. Very very cold. The sun sends a lot of energy at us that is absorbed by the oceans and the earth beneath our feet; which evaporates the ocean - providing nice warm H2O - and vibrates the earth's surface which warm the molecules of air around us keeping away the cold of space. The warm air at the surface is less dense than the colder air above so rises to allow colder air access to the warmth of the surface (convection) creating a "heat pump" that regulates the temperature - add more energy and the faster this pump will work (the atmosphere is adiabatic - change in internal energy is a function of work done against gravity).We use loads of energy and it gives off loads of heat in doing so, soooo how much has this warmed up the planet? It must have had some effect.
It has been suggested that by slightly changing the composition of the gases in the atmosphere this will have a catastrophic change to the temperature at the surface - and by comparing the mid point of the tmin (minimum temperature in a 24 hour period) and tmax (maximum temperature in a 24 hour period) from a small number of sensors over time somehow has shown this to be true (when logic would suggest the actual mean temperature would need to be used for any comparisons and that the mean temp is a function of the amount of gaseous movement not energy in).
By using a static energy balance model with huge amounts of assumptions and little understanding of the triple point of H2O a small number of people have taken a very complex reality (and therefore pretty unknowable chaotic process - weather) mixed it with the precautionary principle and determined that capitalistic economic success based on easy to obtain high energy density raw materials is a danger to the entire planet and therefore must be stopped at all costs..... some of us disagree but get called names for it.
So with Hundreds of pages of opinion and as this is a Science thread.....maybe some of you may like a free course
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial. University of Queensland
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-sc...
About this course
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”
We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
Hide
What you'll learn
How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
How to effectively debunk climate misinformation
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial. University of Queensland
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-sc...
About this course
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.
We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”
We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.
With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.
This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
Hide
What you'll learn
How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
How to effectively debunk climate misinformation
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.IainT said:
Toaster said:
in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Should be in the politics thread as there's no science behind the 97% claim and anything trotting it out as unassailable truth deserves to be handled with utter contempt.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff