Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[SwipeRight]

Jinx said:

SwipeRight said:

I've just seen this on the BBC Science page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-490...

Here's the actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2....


"This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions."

The three papers have been published in the journals Nature (1) and Nature Geoscience (2), (3).

Hmm concentrations of high "anomolies" in modern era merely a resolution issue again? Are there any links to the actual data? And we have had record lows in the current era which the images do not show?

I don't know so see if you can find the data and you take it from there, no?

[BevR]

Jinx said:

Hmm concentrations of high "anomolies" in modern era merely a resolution issue again? Are there any links to the actual data? And we have had record lows in the current era which the images do not show?

Oh and the BBC piece has a classic spliced temperature measurements record graph FFS. If you use a similar resolution as the lowest resolution in the proxies you have used for the rest of the graph (as is standard practice if you want an honest graph) then the temperature measurment records are not so scary......

Edited by Jinx on Thursday 25th July 10:10

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2#data-availability

nature Article said:

The PAGES 2k v.2.0.0 dataset is archived at the World Data Service (WDS) for Paleoclimatology (hosted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)), formatted for both LiPD and WDS ASCII template (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/21171). The screened input data matrix and instrumental target grid, as well as the reconstruction outcomes from this study, are available at Figshare (doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4498373.v1) and NOAA WDS Paleoclimatology (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/26850). We strongly recommend using the multimethod ensembles when working with the reconstructions. For analyses of global mean temperatures we recommend using the reconstruction of the PAGES 2k companion project that explicitly targets the global mean61.

[Jinx]

SwipeRight said:

I don't know so see if you can find the data and you take it from there, no?

From what I can see in the methods, it is a small subset of the Pages 2K 2.0.0 (reduced from 688 original proxies to 210 - mainly tree and coral proxies) data and HadCrut4. So my first question would be - how would the graphs look if all the 688 proxies were used? Is this just another YAD06 all over again?
The "also unprecedented in spatial consistency" part of the conclusion may just be an artefact of the limited proxies used. I would be more impressed/convinced if the modern measurement period was not such a pronounced difference in the visuals - as the first thought is "are the proxies as proxy as we thought"?
These kinds of re-analysis papers rarely bring anything new and are frequently produced in an attempt to re-write rather than enhance history. This paper seems to have been written purely to gun for the "what about the medievel warm period"? question - and has done so by limiting the amount of data we have in those periods and comparing it to the modern measurement (with adjustments) period, coming to the conclusion that "wow they are so different - something mankind has done must be causing it!!!"

Well they are right, something mankind has done did cause the differences - we learnt to measure things....

[Jinx]

BevR said:

Already found them but thanks....

[Terminator X]

kerplunk said:

V10leptoquark said:

In layman terms, with a back to basics question ; is the current rate of warming significantly greater than "natural variance" inline with a warming planet coming out of a previous ice age?

We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).

But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?

(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.

The planet hasn't been on a warming trend since the last ice age so your given is incorrect. The warming that occured at glacial termination peaked thousands of years ago (google 'holocene climate optimum') and since then temps have been generally downward.

Individual peaks of "hottest ever" can happen of course even if the trend is downwards. Graph below as posted before:



TX.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

SwipeRight said:

I don't know so see if you can find the data and you take it from there, no?

From what I can see in the methods, it is a small subset of the Pages 2K 2.0.0 (reduced from 688 original proxies to 210 - mainly tree and coral proxies) data and HadCrut4. So my first question would be - how would the graphs look if all the 688 proxies were used? Is this just another YAD06 all over again?
The "also unprecedented in spatial consistency" part of the conclusion may just be an artefact of the limited proxies used. I would be more impressed/convinced if the modern measurement period was not such a pronounced difference in the visuals - as the first thought is "are the proxies as proxy as we thought"?
These kinds of re-analysis papers rarely bring anything new and are frequently produced in an attempt to re-write rather than enhance history. This paper seems to have been written purely to gun for the "what about the medievel warm period"? question - and has done so by limiting the amount of data we have in those periods and comparing it to the modern measurement (with adjustments) period, coming to the conclusion that "wow they are so different - something mankind has done must be causing it!!!"

Well they are right, something mankind has done did cause the differences - we learnt to measure things....

"These kinds of re-analysis papers rarely bring anything new and are frequently produced in an attempt to re-write rather than enhance history."

So which previous analysis of global temps for the last 2000 years is being 're-written' would you say?

Looks like a relatively large number of proxy records used in this paper compared to previous analyses (which are mostly NH only) - that's an enhancement surely.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

"These kinds of re-analysis papers rarely bring anything new and are frequently produced in an attempt to re-write rather than enhance history."

So which previous analysis of global temps for the last 2000 years is being 're-written' would you say?

Looks like a relatively large number of proxy records used in this paper compared to previous analyses (which are mostly NH only) - that's an enhancement surely.

Is it? Reads more like a we need to force through the idea that the previous warm periods we not global so how do we do it paper. I know lets do a re-analysis paper with only 210 proxies (out of the 700 available) and use mainly tree and coral proxies - (NB tree proxies only cover the growth seasons).
Use all the data and stop splicing measured temperature records without equating the resolutions first. If the proxy is only at 100 year resolution then average the temperature record to that same resolution. Yes it won't be as pronounced but it will be more scientific.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

"These kinds of re-analysis papers rarely bring anything new and are frequently produced in an attempt to re-write rather than enhance history."

So which previous analysis of global temps for the last 2000 years is being 're-written' would you say?

Looks like a relatively large number of proxy records used in this paper compared to previous analyses (which are mostly NH only) - that's an enhancement surely.

Is it? Reads more like a we need to force through the idea that the previous warm periods we not global so how do we do it paper. I know lets do a re-analysis paper with only 210 proxies (out of the 700 available) and use mainly tree and coral proxies - (NB tree proxies only cover the growth seasons).
Use all the data and stop splicing measured temperature records without equating the resolutions first. If the proxy is only at 100 year resolution then average the temperature record to that same resolution. Yes it won't be as pronounced but it will be more scientific.

You read like someone who has already decided whether previous warm (or cold) periods were global or not and are a bit precious about having that long open question examined.

As for the number of proxies used, I don't think there's any obligation to use every single one available in the Pages 2K datasets - you'd need to address the data selection choices made as outlined in the paper to properly criticize it.

For example, according to your logic, if 90% of the proxies in the Pages 2K datasets had a 1yr resolution and the remaining 10% had a 300yr resolution they must use it all and then apply 300 year smoothing to the best quality data! I'm no statistician but I'm pretty sure that would be a moronic thing to do.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

You read like someone who has already decided whether previous warm (or cold) periods were global or not and are a bit precious about having that long open question examined.

As for the number of proxies used, I don't think there's any obligation to use every single one available in the Pages 2K datasets - you'd need to address the data selection choices made as outlined in the paper to properly criticize it.

For example, according to your logic, if 90% of the proxies in the Pages 2K datasets had a 1yr resolution and the remaining 10% had a 300yr resolution they must use it all and then apply 300 year smoothing to the best quality data! I'm no statistician but I'm pretty sure that would be a moronic thing to do.

If you are putting them on the same graph then it is the honest thing to do. I know you hate sceptic blogs but have a check over at Climate audit https://climateaudit.org/2019/07/31/cg2-and-ex-pos... as this is pertinent to this discussion especially around dendrochronology (of which the paper being discussed relies upon) .

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

You read like someone who has already decided whether previous warm (or cold) periods were global or not and are a bit precious about having that long open question examined.

As for the number of proxies used, I don't think there's any obligation to use every single one available in the Pages 2K datasets - you'd need to address the data selection choices made as outlined in the paper to properly criticize it.

For example, according to your logic, if 90% of the proxies in the Pages 2K datasets had a 1yr resolution and the remaining 10% had a 300yr resolution they must use it all and then apply 300 year smoothing to the best quality data! I'm no statistician but I'm pretty sure that would be a moronic thing to do.

If you are putting them on the same graph then it is the honest thing to do. I know you hate sceptic blogs but have a check over at Climate audit https://climateaudit.org/2019/07/31/cg2-and-ex-pos... as this is pertinent to this discussion especially around dendrochronology (of which the paper being discussed relies upon) .

"I know you hate sceptic blogs"

You know no such thing.

That post appears to be about biases introduced due to data selection methods - that's what I'm talking about when I said you'd need to evaluate the choices made in this particular paper to properly criticize it. That doesn't imply using ALL the data available is therefore the best way to go.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

"I know you hate sceptic blogs"

You know no such thing.

That post appears to be about biases introduced due to data selection methods - that's what I'm talking about when I said you'd need to evaluate the choices made in this particular paper to properly criticize it. That doesn't imply using ALL the data available is therefore the best way to go.

And the choices were "mainly tree and coral proxies" . Of which the tree proxies series are (if you read the whole article) equivalent to bull dung:

Ed Cook said:

Maybe Tom Melvin has it right: “Controversy about which bull caused mess not relevent. The possibility that the results in all cases were heap of dung has been missed by commentators.

It is not for critics to prove that using all the data is better it is for the authors to justify the omission. The justification being "our methods require complete time series proxies" maybe (at a push) a justification of the proxy choice in this case but is not a justification of the methods.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

"I know you hate sceptic blogs"

You know no such thing.

That post appears to be about biases introduced due to data selection methods - that's what I'm talking about when I said you'd need to evaluate the choices made in this particular paper to properly criticize it. That doesn't imply using ALL the data available is therefore the best way to go.

And the choices were "mainly tree and coral proxies" . Of which the tree proxies series are (if you read the whole article) equivalent to bull dung:

Ed Cook said:

Maybe Tom Melvin has it right: “Controversy about which bull caused mess not relevent. The possibility that the results in all cases were heap of dung has been missed by commentators.

It is not for critics to prove that using all the data is better it is for the authors to justify the omission. The justification being "our methods require complete time series proxies" maybe (at a push) a justification of the proxy choice in this case but is not a justification of the methods.

If you say "Thou must use all the available datasets" then yes you do have to show why that is the law. Researchers should justify their choices so they can be scrutinized of course.

[Jasey_]

I was looking at this heat change world map and noticed there are 2 very large areas (one in Russia and one in South America) that are the only large bits that are getting colder.

If you position the graphic carefully you can see they are just about on opposite sides of the Globe.

What's that all about then ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-...

[robinessex]

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

[Halb]

Jasey_ said:

I was looking at this heat change world map and noticed there are 2 very large areas (one in Russia and one in South America) that are the only large bits that are getting colder.

If you position the graphic carefully you can see they are just about on opposite sides of the Globe.

What's that all about then ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-...

does this link work for other posters?

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

[andy_s]

Jasey_ said:

I was looking at this heat change world map and noticed there are 2 very large areas (one in Russia and one in South America) that are the only large bits that are getting colder.

If you position the graphic carefully you can see they are just about on opposite sides of the Globe.

What's that all about then ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-...

Halb said:

does this link work for other posters?

It was truncated - here's the full link I hope: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-...

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

[stew-STR160]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Well as this is the scientific CC Forum, try this:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj43O98HL5c

Shooting the messenger isn't allowed

I'm already familiar with Monckton's low-feedback stuff so the most interesting thing to me is that it's you posting it. Monckton doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing CO2, which is at odds with your previously stated views (just a trace gas etc) - have you shifted towards the mainstream view now?

Just look at the conclusion !!

That's what I figured - the conclusion is all that matters to you

Isn't that the point of everything?