Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

durbster said:

kerplunk said:

Who is he championing? There's many bloggers doing credible work looking at the data. A lot of ste ones too of course.

That's true, and I shouldn't dismiss bloggers outright. I'm referring specifically to the ones who share a lot more opinion than insight.

I think I've seen PRTVR citing Tony Heller a lot, so that's who I had in mind.

Heller is defo in the ste category. You can tell that because the more credible bloggers are more of a community discussing each others work - Heller's guff doesn't feature much.

[LimSlip]

kerplunk said:

Oh dear, not even close.

The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.

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

Seems the good old "Cherry picking" is alive and well. How about we look at data from 1950 to present...

Carbonbrief said:

The rate of warming between 1950 and 2016 in the adjusted data is just under 10% faster than the raw data, and only 4% faster since the start of the modern warming period in 1970.

Even the rather biased Carbon Brief website freely admit the adjustments have increased the rate of apparent warning

[Gadgetmac]

Some excellent cherry picking yourself...Can't think why you didn't post a link to the full article

From Carbon Brief and where you got your sound bite from:

But analysis by Carbon Brief comparing raw global temperature records to the adjusted data finds that the truth is much more mundane: adjustments have relatively little impact on global temperatures, particularly over the past 50 years.

In fact, over the full period when measurements are available, adjustments actually have the net effect of reducing the amount of long-term warming that world has experienced.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.carbonbrief.org/e...

The full article paints a rather different picture than you would have us believe.

[kerplunk]

LimSlip said:

kerplunk said:

Oh dear, not even close.

The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.

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

Seems the good old "Cherry picking" is alive and well. How about we look at data from 1950 to present...

Carbonbrief said:

The rate of warming between 1950 and 2016 in the adjusted data is just under 10% faster than the raw data, and only 4% faster since the start of the modern warming period in 1970.

Even the rather biased Carbon Brief website freely admit the adjustments have increased the rate of apparent warning

lol - you're pea-rolling.

As anyone can see, the adjustments make little difference to the picture of global warming after 1950. If you were shown the curves seperately you couldn't tell them apart.

[durbster]

LimSlip said:

kerplunk said:

The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.

Seems the good old "Cherry picking" is alive and well. How about we look at data from 1950 to present...

I have nothing to add here, I just wanted to quote this absolute gem.

[Kawasicki]

What do the adjustments to the land surface temps look like since 1880?

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

What do the adjustments to the land surface temps look like since 1880?

It’s a simple google away as are the adjustments to ocean temps.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

What do the adjustments to the land surface temps look like since 1880?

Here you go

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

[Kawasicki]

There are so many unknowns with early sea temp measurements, it's difficult to see how anyone can be sure what the sea temps were. Evaporative cooling is considered significant enough to adjust the temps, yet nobody knows how long the water was in the bucket before the temp was measured, so how can anyone say whether evaporative cooling is important or not?

Reliable land surface temps are already a huge challenge.

[Gadgetmac]

Just my tuppence worth but I believe I read somewhere that there are existing and in-development ways of getting around these type of issues to get a more accurate reading. As an example I believe some data sets now used only accept readings where more than one vessel within a days sailing or x amount of miles both took readings thus minimising anomalies.

I could be wrong about that though. I also can't remember the other techniques being used or proposed to further help bring clarity.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

There are so many unknowns with early sea temp measurements, it's difficult to see how anyone can be sure what the sea temps were. Evaporative cooling is considered significant enough to adjust the temps, yet nobody knows how long the water was in the bucket before the temp was measured, so how can anyone say whether evaporative cooling is important or not?

Reliable land surface temps are already a huge challenge.

Who says they're sure - the uncertaInty bars get wider in the early part of the record.

And does the bucket-measurement era matter a great deal?

Emissons started zooming up post-1950 and post-bucket era - the modern warming period that followed is the most attributed to AGW and also has the least uncertainties in the data.

[Gadgetmac]

Looks like nearly 1/2 a degree of future warming might have been missed by overlooking the release of carbon trapped in the Arctic permafrost as it melts.

“Currently, scientists estimate that 5-15% of the carbon stored in surface permafrost soils could be emitted as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 2100, given the current trajectory of global warming. This emission, spurred by microbial action, could lead to 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Celsius of additional global warming.”

“Including the U-M team's finding into climate change models means that -- conservatively -- there could be a release of 6% of the 100 billion metric tons of carbon currently stored in Arctic permafrost. If 6% doesn't sound like much, consider that's the carbon equivalent of approximately 29 million cars evaporating into the atmosphere.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/2006...

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

Looks like nearly 1/2 a degree of future warming might have been missed by overlooking the release of carbon trapped in the Arctic permafrost as it melts.

“Currently, scientists estimate that 5-15% of the carbon stored in surface permafrost soils could be emitted as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 2100, given the current trajectory of global warming. This emission, spurred by microbial action, could lead to 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Celsius of additional global warming.”

“Including the U-M team's finding into climate change models means that -- conservatively -- there could be a release of 6% of the 100 billion metric tons of carbon currently stored in Arctic permafrost. If 6% doesn't sound like much, consider that's the carbon equivalent of approximately 29 million cars evaporating into the atmosphere.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/2006...

So we have 1 might, 1 estimate and 3 coulds all stuffed into a climate model. Lovely, this CC science, is it not ?

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

So we have 1 might, 1 estimate and 3 coulds all stuffed into a climate model. Lovely, this CC science, is it not ?

Yes, the study is saying "might" have missed 1/2 a degree of future warming.

But have you actually got any science to refute this Rob? Perhaps a paper or study that says the permafrost melting won't release carbon? Or that Sunlight won't produce the chemical reaction that's been studied? Or even your own science based explanation for why the study is wrong?

Its the science thread Rob and the last time I checked you weren't an aquatic geochemist with published papers to your name.

"The research, led by aquatic geochemist Rose Cory, has found that organic carbon from thawing permafrost is highly susceptible to photomineralization by ultraviolet and visible light, and could contribute an additional 14% of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Her team's study is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

I suspect your argument against the findings of this research on the basis that it includes the words 'might' and 'could' won't be qualifying you to submit a rebuttal anytime soon.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

So we have 1 might, 1 estimate and 3 coulds all stuffed into a climate model. Lovely, this CC science, is it not ?

Yes, the science is saying "might" have missed 1/2 a degree of future warming.

But have you actually got any science to refute this Rob? Perhaps a paper or study that says the permafrost melting won't release carbon? Or that Sunlight won't produce the chemical reaction that's been studied? Or even your own science based explanation for why the study is wrong?

Its the science thread Rob and the last time I checked you weren't an aquatic geochemist with published papers to your name.

"The research, led by aquatic geochemist Rose Cory, has found that organic carbon from thawing permafrost is highly susceptible to photomineralization by ultraviolet and visible light, and could contribute an additional 14% of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Her team's study is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

I suspect your argument against the findings of this research on the basis that it includes the words 'might' and 'could' won't be qualifying you to submit a rebuttal anytime soon.

Ok, you go on believing science that just guesses. You don't need a Ph.D. in anything other than commonsense to determine the plausibility of such 'science'.

[Gadgetmac]

I do wonder why you are always first on the scene when some science is posted with your nonsensical and poorly thought out responses. It's weird. Let somebody else have a pop you might learn something.

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Ok, you go on believing science that just guesses. You don't need a Ph.D. in anything other than commonsense to determine the plausibility of such 'science'.

Ah...your time worn "common sense" argument that's neither common nor sense and certainly contains no science.

Your 'common sense' couldn't help you understand the earth-sun relationship a few pages back.

[robinessex]

Gadgetmac said:

I do wonder why you are always first on the scene when some science is posted with your nonsensical and poorly thought out responses. It's weird. Let somebody else have a pop you might learn something.

Certainly not from you, Mr. Parrot repeating science believer.

[Gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Gadgetmac said:

I do wonder why you are always first on the scene when some science is posted with your nonsensical and poorly thought out responses. It's weird. Let somebody else have a pop you might learn something.

Certainly not from you, Mr. Parrot repeating science believer.

Except when I had to point out to you that you were reading a graph the wrong way round and the fundamentals of the earth/sun relationship and...

[Toltec]

Gadgetmac said:

Looks like nearly 1/2 a degree of future warming might have been missed by overlooking the release of carbon trapped in the Arctic permafrost as it melts.

“Currently, scientists estimate that 5-15% of the carbon stored in surface permafrost soils could be emitted as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 2100, given the current trajectory of global warming. This emission, spurred by microbial action, could lead to 0.3 to 0.4 degrees Celsius of additional global warming.”

“Including the U-M team's finding into climate change models means that -- conservatively -- there could be a release of 6% of the 100 billion metric tons of carbon currently stored in Arctic permafrost. If 6% doesn't sound like much, consider that's the carbon equivalent of approximately 29 million cars evaporating into the atmosphere.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/2006...

So what might happen is that even if we stop producing any greenhouse gases ourselves the warming already predicted will cause a massive release of co2 which will make sure everything keeps heating up anyway?