Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[jet_noise]

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

jet_noise said:

Another for your list stew:
If one is going to choose a "global temperature" before industrialisation at which to target any stasis attempt why choose a cooler one, why not a warmer e.g MWP rather than LIA?

The +1.5C target is as warm, if not warmer than MWP isn't it?

Nice point, there or thereabouts.

I fear I'm going back to politics...
...the delta is always "+1.5 compared to pre-industrial times", why not "the same as the MWP", sounds so much less scary.
We know things are just fine at that level so how about, another 1.5 on top of that?

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

jet_noise said:

Another for your list stew:
If one is going to choose a "global temperature" before industrialisation at which to target any stasis attempt why choose a cooler one, why not a warmer e.g MWP rather than LIA?

The +1.5C target is as warm, if not warmer than MWP isn't it?

Nice point, there or thereabouts.

I fear I'm going back to politics...
...the delta is always "+1.5 compared to pre-industrial times", why not "the same as the MWP", sounds so much less scary.
We know things are just fine at that level so how about, another 1.5 on top of that?

I'd be open to that notion so long as we do it S L O W L Y. I think we're just going too fast at the mo' and we ought to slow it down a bit to see how things unfold and provide more time to adapt/change course if needed

[robinessex]

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

[Toltec]

robinessex said:

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

I read this theother week, at thatpoint the link to the article behind it let me read it too, unfortunately it now seems to be a subscription only access.

https://grist.org/article/the-debate-is-over-the-o...

Using heat (i.e. energy) as the key measurement made much more sense to me than global temperature.

[LoonyTunes]

robinessex said:

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

I think you'll find that breaks PH's rule 4.

[Kawasicki]

Toltec said:

robinessex said:

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

I read this theother week, at thatpoint the link to the article behind it let me read it too, unfortunately it now seems to be a subscription only access.

https://grist.org/article/the-debate-is-over-the-o...

Using heat (i.e. energy) as the key measurement made much more sense to me than global temperature.

Climate science seems to often be incredibly low quality and, funnily enough, often widely publicised. The press just love a dramatic headline, and climate superstar scientists are happy to provide them...

Back to “worse than previously thought” ocean warming...

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/21/is-ocean-warmin...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 29th January 08:35

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

Toltec said:

robinessex said:

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

I read this theother week, at thatpoint the link to the article behind it let me read it too, unfortunately it now seems to be a subscription only access.

https://grist.org/article/the-debate-is-over-the-o...

Using heat (i.e. energy) as the key measurement made much more sense to me than global temperature.

Climate science seems to often be incredibly low quality and, funnily enough, often widely publicised. The press just love a dramatic headline, and climate superstar scientists are happy to provide them...

Back to “worse than previously thought” ocean warming...

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/21/is-ocean-warmin...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 29th January 08:35

To my eye that looks like a high level tussle between some heavyweight number-crunchers - I can't tell who is correct but I applaud it as healthy back and forth, with lots of real work done.

Unfortunately though your first sentence is easily re-written and thrown back at you "Climate science DENIAL seems to often be incredibly low quality and widely publicised"

And here's a good example of what I'm talking about (from the politics thread):

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

Indeed why the focus on individual stations and regional adjustments when you can just look at the net effect of all adjustments on the global data.

Because if you do that the argument disintegrates obviously!

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...

You ought to keep reposting that link every time the ‘adjustocene’ cartoon appears as it explains, in simple terms (for the hard of thinking) why there have to be adjustments to the data.

Probably a bad idea, as the link backs up the idea that the data is being manipulated for political reasons.

Prior to 1980 every single land adjustment has been negative. Post 1980 every single one has been positive.

Does that sound like random adjustments to you?

Why are you ignoring the sea temp adjustments?

Do try and the answer the question this time eh

[JustALooseScrew]

kerplunk said:

To my eye that looks like a high level tussle between some heavyweight number-crunchers - I can't tell who is correct but I applaud it as healthy back and forth, with lots of real work done.

I'm feeling the same. One aspect of 'the missing heat and ocean temperatures' that really perked my criticism was learning that the deep ocean currents allegedly take 1000s of years from sinking off the coast of Antarctica before they resurface in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans.

The time scales, volumes of water and heat capacity are almost beyond belief.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Toltec said:

robinessex said:

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

I read this theother week, at thatpoint the link to the article behind it let me read it too, unfortunately it now seems to be a subscription only access.

https://grist.org/article/the-debate-is-over-the-o...

Using heat (i.e. energy) as the key measurement made much more sense to me than global temperature.

Climate science seems to often be incredibly low quality and, funnily enough, often widely publicised. The press just love a dramatic headline, and climate superstar scientists are happy to provide them...

Back to “worse than previously thought” ocean warming...

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/21/is-ocean-warmin...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 29th January 08:35

To my eye that looks like a high level tussle between some heavyweight number-crunchers - I can't tell who is correct but I applaud it as healthy back and forth, with lots of real work done.

Unfortunately though your first sentence is easily re-written and thrown back at you "Climate science DENIAL seems to often be incredibly low quality and widely publicised"

And here's a good example of what I'm talking about (from the politics thread):

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

Indeed why the focus on individual stations and regional adjustments when you can just look at the net effect of all adjustments on the global data.

Because if you do that the argument disintegrates obviously!

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...

You ought to keep reposting that link every time the ‘adjustocene’ cartoon appears as it explains, in simple terms (for the hard of thinking) why there have to be adjustments to the data.

Probably a bad idea, as the link backs up the idea that the data is being manipulated for political reasons.

Prior to 1980 every single land adjustment has been negative. Post 1980 every single one has been positive.

Does that sound like random adjustments to you?

Why are you ignoring the sea temp adjustments?

Do try and the answer the question this time eh

I didn’t answer the question, because my question wasn’t answered.

I’m not ignoring sea temps, I just trust it even less than the land data, too many different measurement methods...also, humans primarily live on land.

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

I also agree that there is crap science on the skeptic side. It’s not on the front page of many newspapers though, and widely reported in the media. If it was it would be publicly shot down by numerous scientists. Unlike pro catastrophic AGW science.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

Why would adjustments be made at random? Surely they would be done to correct errors found in measurements and/or calculations.

You'll have to elaborate on what you think is happening here. Are you suggesting the adjustments are being done fraudulently and without justification?

If so, what would be the point in doing something so dodgy when there is already a clear warming trend? And why do this knowing it will be scrutinised in great detail? And if you're going to just make up temperatures, wouldn't you make them more dramatic? If you can do it and get away with it, why not just make the past five degrees cooler?

You seem to be accusing these scientists of something but I can't think of any motive that makes any sense.

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 29th January 19:10

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Toltec said:

robinessex said:

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

What the hell is "global temperaure" then?

Hence my quotes

Was bait for others actually !!

I read this theother week, at thatpoint the link to the article behind it let me read it too, unfortunately it now seems to be a subscription only access.

https://grist.org/article/the-debate-is-over-the-o...

Using heat (i.e. energy) as the key measurement made much more sense to me than global temperature.

Climate science seems to often be incredibly low quality and, funnily enough, often widely publicised. The press just love a dramatic headline, and climate superstar scientists are happy to provide them...

Back to “worse than previously thought” ocean warming...

https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/21/is-ocean-warmin...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 29th January 08:35

To my eye that looks like a high level tussle between some heavyweight number-crunchers - I can't tell who is correct but I applaud it as healthy back and forth, with lots of real work done.

Unfortunately though your first sentence is easily re-written and thrown back at you "Climate science DENIAL seems to often be incredibly low quality and widely publicised"

And here's a good example of what I'm talking about (from the politics thread):

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

Indeed why the focus on individual stations and regional adjustments when you can just look at the net effect of all adjustments on the global data.

Because if you do that the argument disintegrates obviously!

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...

You ought to keep reposting that link every time the ‘adjustocene’ cartoon appears as it explains, in simple terms (for the hard of thinking) why there have to be adjustments to the data.

Probably a bad idea, as the link backs up the idea that the data is being manipulated for political reasons.

Prior to 1980 every single land adjustment has been negative. Post 1980 every single one has been positive.

Does that sound like random adjustments to you?

Why are you ignoring the sea temp adjustments?

Do try and the answer the question this time eh

I didn’t answer the question, because my question wasn’t answered.

How else do you think your question could be answered with such a glaring ocean-sized flaw in your reasoning?

Kawasicki said:

I’m not ignoring sea temps, I just trust it even less than the land data, too many different measurement methods...also, humans primarily live on land.

weak!

Kawasicki said:

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

But it's not so 'clear cut' is it, as 71% of the global data isn't adjusted that way swamping the adjustments made to the other 29% that your basing your theory on. What's your theory for that? Did they just forget to adjust the the sea temps the same way undoing their efforts on the land data?

Incidentally you do realise the 'consensus' view is that the science doesn't support a major human contribution to the early 20th century warming right? So there isn't even a good motive for increasing the amount of global warming at that end of the data. Indeed the warming in the early 20th century has often been used by sceptics to say there isn't anything unusual about the post-1970 warming (a somewhat out of date argument now however) so there's another way your theory lacks real coherence.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

Why would adjustments be made at random? Surely they would be done to correct errors found in measurements and/or calculations.

You'll have to elaborate on what you think is happening here. Are you suggesting the adjustments are being done fraudulently and without justification?

If so, what would be the point in doing something so dodgy when there is already a clear warming trend? And why do this knowing it will be scrutinised in great detail? And if you're going to just make up temperatures, wouldn't you make them more dramatic? If you can do it and get away with it, why not just make the past five degrees cooler?

You seem to be accusing these scientists of something but I can't think of any motive that makes any sense.

Edited by durbster on Tuesday 29th January 19:10

Don‘t worry about motives, this is the science thread. Since adjustments are for multiple reasons, some should cool the raw data, some should warm the data. No? Why would such a clear pattern exist where every single year pre 1980 land data should be cooled and post 1980 should be warmed?

What is the global temperature now above the previous 1000 or 10,000 year average? The clear warming trend we have now is still unremarkable...but growing slowly more remarkable as the raw data is adjusted.

[hairykrishna]

Kawasicki said:

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

They are not random. There are large systematic biases in most of the data sets along with random errors. Examples of systematic bias are the one introduced by the shift from liquid filled thermometers to electronic min/max systems and the shift in time of day of observations. There are plenty of papers on the subject.

If the systematic bias is large then you'd expect it to swamp the random element and result in a shift in the same direction for all of the observations made before the change.

Edited by hairykrishna on Tuesday 29th January 21:00

[Kawasicki]

hairykrishna said:

Kawasicki said:

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

They are not random. There are large systematic biases in most of the data sets along with random errors. Examples of systematic bias are the one introduced by the shift from liquid filled thermometers to electronic min/max systems and the shift in time of day of observations. There are plenty of papers on the subject.

If the systematic bias is large then you'd expect it to swamp the random element and result in a shift in the same direction for all of the observations made before the change.

Edited by hairykrishna on Tuesday 29th January 21:00

And all the pre 1980s systematic biases were on the warm side, and all post 1980 were biased cool? That’s, hmmm, somewhat unusual. Forgive my deep scepticism.

[hairykrishna]

That's the science. You asked.

Are you also sceptical that the much larger ocean temperature adjustments all go the other way in the early part of the record? Or do you still not want to talk about the bit that doesn't fit the narrative you've invented?

[Kawasicki]

hairykrishna said:

That's the science. You asked.

Are you also sceptical that the much larger ocean temperature adjustments all go the other way in the early part of the record? Or do you still not want to talk about the bit that doesn't fit the narrative you've invented?

Ok, your answer for odd land temp adjustment patterns is “That’s the science“. Not a very convincing argument.

lets have a look at the sea surface temps.
http://euanmearns.com/making-the-measurements-matc...

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

hairykrishna said:

Kawasicki said:

Do you think it is likely that the adjustments are random when the pattern of adjustment is so clear cut? Not even one year prior to 1980 was adjusted warmer. That just makes me extremely suspicious. Every single reason to change the raw data cooled the past. Every single one. It’s utterly laughable.

They are not random. There are large systematic biases in most of the data sets along with random errors. Examples of systematic bias are the one introduced by the shift from liquid filled thermometers to electronic min/max systems and the shift in time of day of observations. There are plenty of papers on the subject.

If the systematic bias is large then you'd expect it to swamp the random element and result in a shift in the same direction for all of the observations made before the change.

Edited by hairykrishna on Tuesday 29th January 21:00

And all the pre 1980s systematic biases were on the warm side, and all post 1980 were biased cool? That’s, hmmm, somewhat unusual. Forgive my deep scepticism.

All you've presented so far is the same argument from incredulity, so this has become dull. Given the availability of the data, the code, the papers documenting what's done, the small army of citizen auditors out there now, I'd say the chances that you're 'onto something' here that's somehow escaped detection before are remote. There's some 'argument from incredulity' back at you. Forgive my deep scepticism.

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

That's the science. You asked.

Are you also sceptical that the much larger ocean temperature adjustments all go the other way in the early part of the record? Or do you still not want to talk about the bit that doesn't fit the narrative you've invented?

Would reducing earlier temperatures give a higher rate of change to the latter adjustments ?

[hairykrishna]

Kawasicki said:

Ok, your answer for odd land temp adjustment patterns is “That’s the science“. Not a very convincing argument.

You're the one that's asserting they are odd with no explanation for why you think they're odd. Your assertion earlier that they don't look random enough for your liking basically makes me think that the problem is that you don't understand the difference between systematic and random errors.

There are a couple of large, well documented, sources of systematic error in the land measurements. Before these things are changed the land meausurements all have a shift which needs to be corrected for. After these things are changed there's generally only very small, random errors to correct. Those are the reasons. If you want to look in more detail feel free to review the large body of published work associated with the adjustments.