Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[ludo]

wc98 said:

ludo said:

lol another ad-hominem. Keep it for the politics thread. If someone wanted to make money as an academic, they wouldn't choose climatology, there is way more money in biosciences and AI at the moment. You do know, don't you that acedemics don't get to keep the money? It gets spent hiring an RA to do the interesting work (that you would enjoy doing yourself) while you spend time administering the grant and writing reports.

someone should have told jagdish shukla that.

yawn, this is the science thread not the politics thread.

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

ludo said:

I think it is worth going back to the start (or at least nearly)

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

Do we have data with high enough resolution to support the conclusion that it is currently warming at an unusual rate?

I'd say so, the proxy records show that it is warming faster than at any time in the last 2000 years. The Vostok ice core has high resolution for the last 10,000 years and it hasn't warmed as fast in that time either (at least in that region), I gather the Marcott et al proxy reconstruction suggests likewise.

Kawasicki asked a question, and I gave my opinion (note "I'd say so" rather than "yes, there are", because in a scientific discussion it is a good idea to know the difference between an opinion and a fact). I'm happy to be shown to be wrong (note I agreed with Kawasicki about the rate of increase at the glacial/interglacial boundary).



I don't think there is a great deal of point in going back further than the start of the last interglacial because human civilisation and agriculture doesn't go back any further than that. IMHO climate change presents little danger to us as a species, it just raises problems for our civilisation and our ability to feed ourselves in the numbers that currently inhabit the planet - the problems will largely be in the developing world.

I did actually pick up on the fact that you were offering your opinion. Thanks.

Saying that, shouldn't scientific debate focus on data/facts?

You asked a question, and I gave you a straight answer. That is what people do in scientific discussions, and where they know it is opinion, they indicate that.

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

I did actually pick up on the fact that you were offering your opinion. Thanks.

Saying that, shouldn't scientific debate focus on data/facts?

The data shows that the current interglacial period is not particularly warm.
We have no reliable data to support the notion that the rate of warming in the current interglacial is remarkable/outside the range of natural variation.

Ironically, that is your opinion, not a fact. That is the joy of being a skeptic, you can question the reliability of anything, you just need to increase the level of certainty required arbitrarily high and you can ignore any data.

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

I think the term 'global warming' is best thought of as synchronous warming in both hemispheres and therefore not a bi-polar 'see-saw' effect that's apparent in other periods of climate change (see Dansgaard Oeschger events for example). Your suggestion that it should warm everywhere in lockstep is naive as it neglects the reality of how heat is distributed around the planet by winds and ocean currents etc which can change in character.

Funny you should mention Reykjavik in this regard as there's been a persistant cool anomaly in north atlantic for the last several years suggesting a change in the thermohaline circulation. See the video produced by BEST (which also belies your claim about the arctic being responsible for vitually all the NH warming)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=90&amp...

that persistent cool anomaly is the beginning of the cool phase of the amo . if someone is going to coin a scientific term like global warming then i expect them to define if it if they don't really mean global. are you sure we see a synchronous warming in both hemispheres ? given the vastly different percentage of land, the greater area of ocean in the southern hemisphere would suggest that wouldn't be expected at all. How far from reykjavik is the cool area of n.e atlantic and what has that cool patch got to do with reykjavik temps not increasing at all in the modern era ? unless you believe the co2 man has added to the atmosphere has changed the thermohaline circulation ?

forget best . the methodology takes temps from within and without the arctic and extrapolates them up to 1200 km . so arctic warming is exported outside the arctic. this creates a physical impression of greater warming across a wider range than physically occurs in reality. they have "regional expectations" that are not cross checked against physical temperatures in locations where temp is actually measured. i actually asked steven mosher about this personally and when he explained what they did it was perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't mean what you think.

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

ludo said:

wc98 said:

yep there is nothing wrong with it if you believe smearing temps with places 1200km away gives you anything accurate.

Spatial averaging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Leaving coverage gaps creates biases as well (e.g. the cool bias in HADCRUT due to not including the high Arctic). The climatologists cross-validate their data to find the approaches that are most reliable. You may not like that, but then again you haven't got a demonstrably better approach.

I've told wc98 before - if you don't like the smoothing methodologies employed in some datasets then stick to Hadcrut which doesn't do that. But of course there's not much difference in the observation of global warming in the Hadcrut dataset so making a big noise about smoothing is just the usual pea-rolling.

it's just a chosen methodology (pha method is not smoothing afaiui ?) that is neither right or wrong. what is wrong with having a record of individual pristine stations and monitoring their results ? in fact that appears to be what is being created with uscrn ,so someone thinks it's a good idea.

[Kawasicki]

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

I did actually pick up on the fact that you were offering your opinion. Thanks.

Saying that, shouldn't scientific debate focus on data/facts?

The data shows that the current interglacial period is not particularly warm.
We have no reliable data to support the notion that the rate of warming in the current interglacial is remarkable/outside the range of natural variation.

Ironically, that is your opinion, not a fact. That is the joy of being a skeptic, you can question the reliability of anything, you just need to increase the level of certainty required arbitrarily high and you can ignore any data.

Being a sceptic is quite joyful, I agree. Being an alarmist(I am not calling you an alarmist by the way) seems to be quite tricky.

I am not ignoring any data...so if you can just point it out to me, I'd really appreciate it. Change my opinion, with data. Or point me to someone who can. Or ignore me...I'm ok with that too.

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

Being a sceptic is quite joyful, I agree. Being an alarmist(I am not calling you an alarmist by the way) seems to be quite tricky.

I am not ignoring any data...so if you can just point it out to me, I'd really appreciate it. Change my opinion, with data. Or point me to someone who can. Or ignore me...I'm ok with that too.

Evasion. I was pointing out that you objected to me giving my opinion in a scientific discussion and then went on to present your opinion as a fact. I'm sorry, I am not interested in this rhetorical smart-arse debate stuff, it is not the way to make progress with anything.

I'm not interested in changing your opinion, I am interested in discussing the science.

[ludo]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

ludo said:

wc98 said:

yep there is nothing wrong with it if you believe smearing temps with places 1200km away gives you anything accurate.

Spatial averaging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Leaving coverage gaps creates biases as well (e.g. the cool bias in HADCRUT due to not including the high Arctic). The climatologists cross-validate their data to find the approaches that are most reliable. You may not like that, but then again you haven't got a demonstrably better approach.

I've told wc98 before - if you don't like the smoothing methodologies employed in some datasets then stick to Hadcrut which doesn't do that. But of course there's not much difference in the observation of global warming in the Hadcrut dataset so making a big noise about smoothing is just the usual pea-rolling.

it's just a chosen methodology (pha method is not smoothing afaiui ?) that is neither right or wrong. what is wrong with having a record of individual pristine stations and monitoring their results ? in fact that appears to be what is being created with uscrn ,so someone thinks it's a good idea.

simple, we don't have a time machine to go back to the start of the instrumental record and replace the WEATHER stations with pristine climate monitoring stations optimally space across the planet. Sometimes you have to make the best of what you have (and discuss the uncertainties).

[wc98]

ludo said:

wc98 said:

ludo said:

yawn, like climate skeptics are always unbiased in their presentation of the data, for feeding climate complacency, generally because they don't want to be taxed or give up their comfortable lifestyles, whatever the cost to the environment and future generations. That is for the politics threads, it would be better if you kept to the science.

There is also nothing wrong with the pairwise homogenisation methods BEST uses, and it is no surprise that statistical breakpoint methods will have false-positives (they will also have false-negatives and miss breakpoints that are actually there). If we had certainty, we wouldn't need statistics, so that objection was bogus as well.

i am surprised you are posting here having given up your comfortable existence.

[

the usual ad-hominem. I don't want to give up my lifestyle either, the difference is that my view of the science isn't influenced by that because I make a point of being objective about it.

wc98 said:

yep there is nothing wrong with it if you believe smearing temps with places 1200km away gives you anything accurate.

Spatial averaging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Leaving coverage gaps creates biases as well (e.g. the cool bias in HADCRUT due to not including the high Arctic). The climatologists cross-validate their data to find the approaches that are most reliable. You may not like that, but then again you haven't got a demonstrably better approach.

wc98 said:

someone else also said if you need statistics to explain your theory you need a better theory. statistics can show many useful things, as already said elsewhere climate statisticians don't always appear to follow established rules in the discipline.

I think that was probably Ernest Rutherford being paraphrased. Of course statistics is very very heavily used in particle physics these days, which shows just how wrong Rutherford was to say that.

apologies if you took that reply (and those of others i see) as an ad hominen. this will no doubt be taken as another when it is not intended but you must have led a very ,very sheltered life if that is the case.

you keep mentioning other people doing things better.a brexit term would be a good analogy here imo. no deal is better than a bad deal. if the only thing you have in your fridge is a plate of dogst, are you going to have it for your dinner ?

how about people accept that accurate temperature data for the last thousand years is just not available and work on improving our data recording for the future.

[Kawasicki]

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

Being a sceptic is quite joyful, I agree. Being an alarmist(I am not calling you an alarmist by the way) seems to be quite tricky.

I am not ignoring any data...so if you can just point it out to me, I'd really appreciate it. Change my opinion, with data. Or point me to someone who can. Or ignore me...I'm ok with that too.

Evasion. I was pointing out that you objected to me giving my opinion in a scientific discussion and then went on to present your opinion as a fact. I'm sorry, I am not interested in this rhetorical smart-arse debate stuff, it is not the way to make progress with anything.

I'm not interested in changing your opinion, I am interested in discussing the science.

I didn't object to you giving your opinion.

You are the one being evasive.

What are the facts regarding the current rate of warming?

[ludo]

Kawasicki said:

I didn't object to you giving your opinion.

bullst

Kawaicki said:

I did actually pick up on the fact that you were offering your opinion. Thanks.

Saying that, shouldn't scientific debate focus on data/facts?

Sorry, I am bored with this. You will note that I was willing to accept the higher rates of warming that you pointed out in the Vostok data and considered them. It is not me being evasive.

[ludo]

wc98 said:

apologies if you took that reply (and those of others i see) as an ad hominen. this will no doubt be taken as another when it is not intended but you must have led a very ,very sheltered life if that is the case.
.

Schopenhauer strategem number 8 - not even trying to be be subtle about it. Sorry, you have made it clear that this is not about the science, just winning a pointless on-line debate. I have better things to do with my time.

[Kawasicki]

ludo said:

Kawasicki said:

I didn't object to you giving your opinion.

bullst

Kawaicki said:

I did actually pick up on the fact that you were offering your opinion. Thanks.

Saying that, shouldn't scientific debate focus on data/facts?

Sorry, I am bored with this. You will note that I was willing to accept the higher rates of warming that you pointed out in the Vostok data and considered them. It is not me being evasive.

Ok, sorry if I insulted/bored you.

[wc98]

ludo said:

I don't think there is a great deal of point in going back further than the start of the last interglacial because human civilisation and agriculture doesn't go back any further than that. IMHO climate change presents little danger to us as a species, it just raises problems for our civilisation and our ability to feed ourselves in the numbers that currently inhabit the planet - the problems will largely be in the developing world.

i tend to agree with that if things pan out as projected by climate science today. the rest is semantics. as was seen in france recently, any politician attempting to make sudden changes that will adversely impact on peoples way of life in a rapid timescale will be put back in their box in short order. the eu/un salami approach will be the only way to achieve any meaningful lifestyle change across the board.

my own personal position is every anthropogenic impact on the planet is natural as we are just another species, albeit one that happens to be able to bring about greater physical changes to our surroundings than others.

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

But no

but yes, need to loosen up on that hair trigger

[wc98]

ludo said:

yawn, this is the science thread not the politics thread.

what bit of a scientist stealing grant money is politics ? it also countered what was stated,alongside the fact they do actually get to keep some of the money quite legally. that's a very telling reply imo.

i am open to changing my position if more compelling evidence comes along to support the cagw paradigm. is your current opinion on the subject open to change under any circumstances ?

[wc98]

ludo said:

Schopenhauer strategem number 8 - not even trying to be be subtle about it. Sorry, you have made it clear that this is not about the science, just winning a pointless on-line debate. I have better things to do with my time.

i have no idea how i am supposed to make anyone angry on the internet. how would i even know ? it is about the science and the lack of scientific rigour that abounds in science today, not just climate science if the replication crisis is anything to go by.

science is a business like any other. future funding requires results. that brings pressure that can lead to poor decisions. i have just been reading some email that have been recently released, they point to this very thing. i won't go further as it strays into the politics , but it is an issue, again not just in climate science.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

I think the term 'global warming' is best thought of as synchronous warming in both hemispheres and therefore not a bi-polar 'see-saw' effect that's apparent in other periods of climate change (see Dansgaard Oeschger events for example). Your suggestion that it should warm everywhere in lockstep is naive as it neglects the reality of how heat is distributed around the planet by winds and ocean currents etc which can change in character.

Funny you should mention Reykjavik in this regard as there's been a persistant cool anomaly in north atlantic for the last several years suggesting a change in the thermohaline circulation. See the video produced by BEST (which also belies your claim about the arctic being responsible for vitually all the NH warming)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=90&amp...

that persistent cool anomaly is the beginning of the cool phase of the amo . if someone is going to coin a scientific term like global warming then i expect them to define if it if they don't really mean global. are you sure we see a synchronous warming in both hemispheres ? given the vastly different percentage of land, the greater area of ocean in the southern hemisphere would suggest that wouldn't be expected at all.

I simply mean both hemispheres are warming at the same time - synchronous - not anti-phased as in other times when one hemisphere cooled while the other warmed.

wc98 said:

How far from reykjavik is the cool area of n.e atlantic and what has that cool patch got to do with reykjavik temps not increasing at all in the modern era ? unless you believe the co2 man has added to the atmosphere has changed the thermohaline circulation ?

Your mention of Reykjavik just reminded me of the cold anomaly the north atlantic, that's all.

wc98 said:

forget best . the methodology takes temps from within and without the arctic and extrapolates them up to 1200 km . so arctic warming is exported outside the arctic. this creates a physical impression of greater warming across a wider range than physically occurs in reality. they have "regional expectations" that are not cross checked against physical temperatures in locations where temp is actually measured. i actually asked steven mosher about this personally and when he explained what they did it was perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't mean what you think.

I think I won't "forget best" thanks - you can if you like.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

ludo said:

wc98 said:

yep there is nothing wrong with it if you believe smearing temps with places 1200km away gives you anything accurate.

Spatial averaging is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Leaving coverage gaps creates biases as well (e.g. the cool bias in HADCRUT due to not including the high Arctic). The climatologists cross-validate their data to find the approaches that are most reliable. You may not like that, but then again you haven't got a demonstrably better approach.

I've told wc98 before - if you don't like the smoothing methodologies employed in some datasets then stick to Hadcrut which doesn't do that. But of course there's not much difference in the observation of global warming in the Hadcrut dataset so making a big noise about smoothing is just the usual pea-rolling.

it's just a chosen methodology (pha method is not smoothing afaiui ?) that is neither right or wrong. what is wrong with having a record of individual pristine stations and monitoring their results ? in fact that appears to be what is being created with uscrn ,so someone thinks it's a good idea.

Any evidence that the USCRN is giving different results to the regular stations yet? Quite the opposite I believe. If USCRN doesn't give different results then that kind of undermines the imperative to do it doesn't it.

[deeps]

wc98 said:

apologies if you took that reply (and those of others i see) as an ad hominen. this will no doubt be taken as another when it is not intended but you must have led a very ,very sheltered life if that is the case.

you keep mentioning other people doing things better.a brexit term would be a good analogy here imo. no deal is better than a bad deal. if the only thing you have in your fridge is a plate of dogst, are you going to have it for your dinner ?

how about people accept that accurate temperature data for the last thousand years is just not available and work on improving our data recording for the future.

Very nicely put, and the only response was a rather 'cop out' SS Number 8.