Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

dense

An interesting claim about how NASA has more than doubled 1870-2000 global warming, by simply altering and hiding data. Eighteen years ago they showed 0,5C warming prior to the year 2000. Now they show more than 1C warming prior to the year 2000.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/05/nasa-doubling-global-warming-by-altering-the-data/#comments

I haven't checked the data so don't know if the claim is true.

But we do know that NASA has added half a degree to US warming for the 20th century through adjustments, so that no one knows what the real figures are.
That has caused problems here before for those pushing the AGW angle.

These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Can you please stop saying we? It's grating. Why not just say they?
It's like when you said we discovered the satellites were wonky, remember?
We didn't discover it, they did.

We shouldnt be trying to ingratiate ourselves in these things, do you agree?

Whether it's a San Francisco shopping centre, or Florida real estate it's not incumbent upon us to protect them.

This constant, deliberately loose wording is poisoning the well.

Scientific papers use we to describe knowledge that it is assumed people in the field should know. For example theorums or axioms and general principles like plate tectonics and climate change)

Its also valid to use 'we' to refer to humanity as a whole. Scientists are humans, scientists work in collaboration with society at large, we are all part of society. Once a scientist makes a discovery and publishes it, it becomes a part of the body of Human knowledge and is discoverable by us.

I prefer to use inclusive language because this is a problem that we as a species are all responsible for causing in some way, and are all a part of how we can solve this problem (or stand in the way of a solution)

Now respect my chosen pronoun please.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

An interesting claim about how NASA has more than doubled 1870-2000 global warming, by simply altering and hiding data. Eighteen years ago they showed 0,5C warming prior to the year 2000. Now they show more than 1C warming prior to the year 2000.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/05/nasa-doubling-global-warming-by-altering-the-data/#comments

I haven't checked the data so don't know if the claim is true.

But we do know that NASA has added half a degree to US warming for the 20th century through adjustments, so that no one knows what the real figures are.
That has caused problems here before for those pushing the AGW angle.




https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Wow, things are bad when not only are you referencing non peer reviewed blogs, but now anonymous comments on said blogs without even trying to check if the information is correct.

You do know that there are crackpots on the internet right? People put up graphs 'proving' the earth is flat

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You do know that there are crackpots on the internet right?

Of that, there is no doubt.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Of that, there is no doubt.

True, now, how does one identify a crackpot?

Lets pick a few criteria

Crackpots
- Think their own theory about science is true and the prevailing scientific consensus is wrong
- Think the reason their own theory isn't accepted is because of a conspiracy by others to suppress their theory
- Think that all data that agrees with their theory is important, and all data that disagrees with their theory is flawed or fabricated
- Think that they don't need evidence that supports their theory, it is enough to simply 'debunk' the mainstream theory by finding perceived flaws in the science
- Think that principles that have already been comprehensively disproven are still plausible but haven't gotten around to proving it scientifically yet
- Haven't been published in a reputable journal because it's all a clique and scientists don't want to allow breakthroughs to disrupt their 'grant money'
- Claim that they have been 'hounded' out of their jobs because their ideas are too radical
- Are internet personalities who set up blogs and therefore must be experts.
- Post unsourced graphs from anonymous comments in blogs that they haven't verified as being accurate simply because they like what they say.
- People who come to conclusions and justify their perspective with reference to gaps in knowledge rather than evidence that actually supports their conclusion.


Non Crackpots
- People who accept the scientific consensus held by the vast majority of actively publishing scientists in any given field
- People who use respected institutions, universities and governmental reports as sources and represent their conclusions accurately
- People who base their opinion on the best available evidence

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Scientific papers use we to describe knowledge that it is assumed people in the field should know. For example theorums or axioms and general principles like plate tectonics and climate change)

Its also valid to use 'we' to refer to humanity as a whole. Scientists are humans, scientists work in collaboration with society at large, we are all part of society. Once a scientist makes a discovery and publishes it, it becomes a part of the body of Human knowledge and is discoverable by us.

I prefer to use inclusive language because this is a problem that we as a species are all responsible for causing in some way, and are all a part of how we can solve this problem (or stand in the way of a solution)

Now respect my chosen pronoun please.

I will if you choose correctly.

Definition of we in English:
we
pronoun

1 first person plural Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
‘shall we have a drink?’

1.1 Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category.
‘nobody knows kids better than we teachers do’

1.2 People in general.
‘we should eat as varied and well-balanced a diet as possible’
1.3West Indian Us or our.
‘thought you wasn't coming to look for we’

2 first person plural Used in formal contexts for or by a royal person, or by a writer or editor, to refer to himself or herself.
‘in this section we discuss the reasons for this decision’

3 first person plural Used condescendingly to refer to the person being addressed.
‘how are we today?’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/we

Definition of they in English:
they
pronoun

1third person plural Used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
‘the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted’

1.1 People in general.
‘the rest, as they say, is history’

1.2 informal People in authority regarded collectively.
‘they cut my water off’

2 third person plural singular Used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.
‘ask a friend if they could help’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/they



Do we understand the difference now?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Because you choose to show Europe being colder than average, but not mention that globally march was still significantly warmer than average. And all weather is now affected by the changes we have made. The likelihood of atmospheric blocking in winter is affected by Atlantic ssts, and in summer by arctic amplification

The head of the WMO said last year that we are in uncharted territory. Climate change is affecting all aspects of global weather systems

But wait, only a few weeks ago you were talking about European floods. Why not the whole globe? Are there posting rules here than I'm missing? Are there only some pieces of data we're allowed post and not others?

ALL weather is affected by climate change? So you now attribute all weather events to climate change? That's a handy one.

March 2018 is notable in that it's the first below-average March for a long time. Surely a graph such as this is postworthy? The SSW was the reason for this cold anomaly. Now are you saying that the SSW was due to AGW?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Cold periods need to be explained with reference to the weather systems that generate them. Climate change is real, therefore all weather is affected. We need to investigate how the atmosphere and oceans are interacting under this new warmer regime to better explain how weather will be affected. Posting a picture of a cold Europe and just letting it hang there serves no purpose.

If I post a chart showing the global average temperature is yet again way above average, it is to show that climate change is still happening and the rate of warming. If Gaoth Laidir puts a chart showing one part of the world is colder than average, what is his point?

The point has been explained now three times.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Wow, things are bad when not only are you referencing non peer reviewed blogs, but now anonymous comments on said blogs without even trying to check if the information is correct.

Are you saying it's incorrect?

No I don't think you are, and you certainly haven't shown it to be.

And you have previously accepted that NASA added half a degree of warming to the US between 1900 and 1990.

Hard to deny it when they actually say it themselves:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

A graph of that would probably look like the one below!!

The US was where this global warming hysteria began, wasn't it?

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

ALL weather is affected by climate change? So you now attribute all weather events to climate change? That's a handy one.

Nailed it.

Gaoth Laidir

My last post on this.

Akrasia wrote: »

Neither of those are concessions because I never said either of those things. You're arguing against what you think I'm saying and missing my points entirely. You have avoided replying to any of my mentions of the bell curve. Is there a reason for this?

You did say that 2003 has been repeated and you did say that "the next one will be record-breaking".

Conceeding? You said "you want to talk about deaths (of course you do)"
Which was your own smarmy way of suggesting I enjoy talking about deaths.

Conceeding. Admitting. Whatever term you want to use. You chose to use deathtolls to back up your argument because it's a striking metric to use. That's why I said you wanted to use it, not for some macarbre reason. But you did bring it up, which is what you were denying.

What does the word 'observed' mean then?

And projected. Where does it give data for the extent of the observed changes? It does so for projected ones but not no details on observations.

Findings are only pertinent if the methods are sound, and we should consider the broader scientific literature as well as the findings of individual papers.

Of course. If the methods are sound then the paper is acceptable. You seem to be implying that the findings are only pertinent if they "agree with the broader scientific literature". Why is that important if the methods in the paper are sound? Do you not want any findings to go against your consensus? The same way as someone can't post a negative temperature anomaly.

It is if we have chosen to not take measures to protect them. If San Francisco didn't have building regulations requiring earthquake resistance then it would be the governments fault if people get needlessly killed in a collapsed shopping centre

There you go speaking about deaths again. Florida, etc. are and always have been in the hurricane belt. That hasn't changed, yet people continue to buy prime seafront properties. But wait, now I come to think of it, if the "consensus" is correct, and the number of hurricanes will actually decrease in the future, then the probability of landfall for any one location will also decrease with time. Hmm, maybe I'll buy me a house in Key West.

Right so you do support global action equivalent to spending at least 3 trillion dollars every year on action to prevent climate change?

Why didn't you say so earlier!

Would have saved a lot of hassle

No idea where you're going with this.

Doeshedare

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

ALL weather is affected by climate change? So you now attribute all weather events to climate change? That's a handy one.

Affected by : Have an effect on; make a difference to.
Attributed: regard something as being caused by

So in English affecting something is not the same as causing something but I suspect you know that and are just being deliberately disingenuous

dense

Doeshedare wrote: »

Affected by : Have an effect on; make a difference to.
Attributed: regard something as being caused by

So in English affecting something is not the same as causing something but I suspect you know that and are just being deliberately disingenuous

So in English, please quantify the effect you've outlined?

Doeshedare

dense wrote: »

So in English, please quantify the effect you've outlined?

Can you attribute to me the outlining of an effect?

Lumi

Mod Note

The personal sniping matches and grammar nazism are derailing the thread and making it unpleasant to read.

Back on topic please.
If you have personal comments to make to another contributor then use the Private Message function and keep it civil.

Thanks

Gaoth Laidir

Doeshedare wrote: »

Affected by : Have an effect on; make a difference to.
Attributed: regard something as being caused by

So in English affecting something is not the same as causing something but I suspect you know that and are just being deliberately disingenuous

Akrasia said that climate change is affecting everything. Attribution is merely the highest form of this.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But wait, only a few weeks ago you were talking about European floods. Why not the whole globe? Are there posting rules here than I'm missing? Are there only some pieces of data we're allowed post and not others?

Where did I say you weren't allowed to post your picture. I asked you why you posted it. Others and you have got all are acting like I'm trying to censor you or control what you're allowed to say?

ALL weather is affected by climate change? So you now attribute all weather events to climate change? That's a handy one.

I tried to explain this to you many many times, It appears I'm gonna have to explain this again.
Weather is always a function of the conditions that precede it. When you cause more energy to be trapped by the atmosphere, leading to warmer oceans, smaller glaciers and ice caps and differential warming in different parts of the planet, you are affecting the weather. In a counter factual world without human ghgs, the weather we have every single day would be different.

March 2018 is notable in that it's the first below-average March for a long time. Surely a graph such as this is postworthy? The SSW was the reason for this cold anomaly. Now are you saying that the SSW was due to AGW?

You said 'the' reason for the cold anomaly. There wasn't just one reason, and the causes are all multi layered. And while SSWs can happen naturally, the likelyhood and magnitude of these events is affected by the climate change we have experienced.
Weather does not occur in isolation.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

My last post on this.



You did say that 2003 has been repeated and you did say that "the next one will be record-breaking".

No, I said heatwaves like 2003 have become more common, not that 2003 has been repeated, what does that even mean anyway? no two weather events are ever exactly the same. I said that the extreme of 2003 was an unprecedented event, but since then there have been a number of heatwaves in the region approaching it's intensity and duration(surpassing it in Russia 2010). I didn't say the next heatwave will be record breaking, I said the next time there is an extreme heatwave it will be another world record, because the 2003 heatwave is becoming a more normal event in Europe. Hence the bell curve that I keep referring to.

Conceeding. Admitting. Whatever term you want to use. You chose to use deathtolls to back up your argument because it's a striking metric to use. That's why I said you wanted to use it, not for some macarbre reason. But you did bring it up, which is what you were denying.

Fine

And projected. Where does it give data for the extent of the observed changes? It does so for projected ones but not no details on observations.

It's in the report. I've only got a few minutes to write now so I don't have time to locate specifics. And there are loads of other studies that document observed changes to flora and fauna in Europe and around the world. Off the top of my head, the pine beetle infestation in America is causing widespread destruction of forests in central USA due to climate change.

Of course. If the methods are sound then the paper is acceptable. You seem to be implying that the findings are only pertinent if they "agree with the broader scientific literature". Why is that important if the methods in the paper are sound? Do you not want any findings to go against your consensus? The same way as someone can't post a negative temperature anomaly.

No, I have seen contradicting studies on global storms intensity and I want to look into it more to see which studies I should find most credible.



[quoteThere you go speaking about deaths again. Florida, etc. are and always have been in the hurricane belt. That hasn't changed, yet people continue to buy prime seafront properties. But wait, now I come to think of it, if the "consensus" is correct, and the number of hurricanes will actually decrease in the future, then the probability of landfall for any one location will also decrease with time. Hmm, maybe I'll buy me a house in Key West.[/quote]
Off you go. Get one on a hill though.

No idea where you're going with this.

RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 assume government action on reducing emissions. Stern said in 2008 said it will take about 3% of world GDP to address climate change. Spending less than what is needed to address climate change, is basically RCP 8.5 which is the business as usual scenario. I just want to find out whether you support business as usual or not, given that you don't seem too enthusiastic about the concept of taking urgent action on climate change.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 assume government action on reducing emissions. Stern said in 2008 said it will take about 3% of world GDP to address climate change. Spending less than what is needed to address climate change, is basically RCP 8.5 which is the business as usual scenario. I just want to find out whether you support business as usual or not, given that you don't seem too enthusiastic about the concept of taking urgent action on climate change.

Again, we need to be realistic about the catastrophe industry and how it grabs onto these things, and acknowledge that the RCP database itself reminds us that RCPs are just four independent pathways developed by four individual modeling groups.

It goes even further than that and tells anyone who'll listen that they're not to be taken too seriously:

The RCPs are not forecasts or boundaries for potential emissions, land-use, or climate change.

They are also not policy prescriptive in that they were chosen for scientific purposes to represent the span of the radiative forcing literature at the time of their selection and thus facilitate the mapping of a broad climate space.

They therefore do not represent specific futures with respect to climate policy action (or no action) or technological, economic, or political viability of specific future pathways or climates.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tnt/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Where did I say you weren't allowed to post your picture. I asked you why you posted it. Others and you have got all are acting like I'm trying to censor you or control what you're allowed to say?

I post a picture. You ask me why I posted it. You don't agree with the post. Had I posted a warm anomaly, however, I don't think you'd bat an eyelid. Maybe censor is too strong a word but certainly a strong disagreement with it.

I tried to explain this to you many many times, It appears I'm gonna have to explain this again.
Weather is always a function of the conditions that precede it. When you cause more energy to be trapped by the atmosphere, leading to warmer oceans, smaller glaciers and ice caps and differential warming in different parts of the planet, you are affecting the weather. In a counter factual world without human ghgs, the weather we have every single day would be different.

But sure if I hadn't farted the other day then the weather would be different too. Climate is a chaotic, dynamic system. GHGs may be one of many competing factors at play in any one event.

You said 'the' reason for the cold anomaly. There wasn't just one reason, and the causes are all multi layered. And while SSWs can happen naturally, the likelyhood and magnitude of these events is affected by the climate change we have experienced.
Weather does not occur in isolation.

Yes, compared to anything else, the SSW was the primary reason for the cold spell in Europe. Are you saying the SSW was affected by climate change? How exactly? Do you have evidence to support the claim that cc is affecting SSW magnitudes and probabilities? Please share.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

No, I said heatwaves like 2003 have become more common, not that 2003 has been repeated, what does that even mean anyway? no two weather events are ever exactly the same. I said that the extreme of 2003 was an unprecedented event, but since then there have been a number of heatwaves in the region approaching it's intensity and duration(surpassing it in Russia 2010). I didn't say the next heatwave will be record breaking, I said the next time there is an extreme heatwave it will be another world record, because the 2003 heatwave is becoming a more normal event in Europe. Hence the bell curve that I keep referring to.

"It won't be record-breaking, it will be another world record". Em, it's the same thing.

It's in the report. I've only got a few minutes to write now so I don't have time to locate specifics. And there are loads of other studies that document observed changes to flora and fauna in Europe and around the world. Off the top of my head, the pine beetle infestation in America is causing widespread destruction of forests in central USA due to climate change.

Interesting. I've never heard of that. Which facet of climate change are we talking about? What drastic change in local climate has led to the infestation, and how?

No, I have seen contradicting studies on global storms intensity and I want to look into it more to see which studies I should find most credible.

Ah, so you've seen more than the one I posted. That's not quite a consensus, then, though you seemed confident enough to paint doomsday scenarios for the hurricane belt a few days ago. How so, if you're seeing conflicting evidence?

Off you go. Get one on a hill though.

Not many hills in that area. So which is it, the likelihood of a landfall will rise or fall?

RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 assume government action on reducing emissions. Stern said in 2008 said it will take about 3% of world GDP to address climate change. Spending less than what is needed to address climate change, is basically RCP 8.5 which is the business as usual scenario. I just want to find out whether you support business as usual or not, given that you don't seem too enthusiastic about the concept of taking urgent action on climate change.

Is it still that same figure 10 years later? In the meantime every year has fallen along the very lowest extent of the RCP scenarios, so maybe that 3% is a bit off. I fully support all efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, up to but excluding carbon taxes. There are other ways of focusing energy on renewable sources but it would need a huge determination to get around the oil dynasty that rules all. This is not the fault of the common Joe on the street

sryanbruen

Akrasia wrote: »

You said 'the' reason for the cold anomaly. There wasn't just one reason, and the causes are all multi layered. And while SSWs can happen naturally, the likelyhood and magnitude of these events is affected by the climate change we have experienced.
Weather does not occur in isolation.

How so out of curiosity?

SSW events are random and natural historically. You can have multiple years without one (1992 to 1998) or you can have multiple years with one (2006 to 2010). I have not seen anything affect the likelihood of SSW events during my research of them in the past year whether it's SST anomalies, AMO phases, ENSO, QBO etc. The thing with stratospheric records is that the charts for them only go back to 1979: https://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/archives/archives.php?mode=0&month=1&day=2&year=1985&map=5&hour=6&type=era&region=nh whilst the data only goes back to 1951: http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/northpole/index.html so you can only base back to these periods which is not a good sample - brings up my point again on the lack of data available.

SSW events need lot more research as right now they're impossible to predict like well in advance (more than a month) and also impossible to predict the effects of one because all SSW events are unique in their own way. There's even different types of SSW events like major, minor and final and positioning of Polar Vortex such as displacement, split or obliteration. Anyway, I'm off on a bit of a tangent here.

With such a lack of data available to us on SSW events and the stratosphere in general along with how previous years have fared (see point 1), I wouldn't link it to climate change in any sort of way personally.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

Gaoth Laidir

Anyway, there's an interesting talk on in the Customs House next Thursday.

https://www.met.ie/grand-day-for-it-how-forecasting-as-conversation-can-speak-beyond-weather-and-climate

In his talk, Pádraig will argue that weather presenters and forecasters must realise both their political role and their social role. In other words, in a time of so-called ‘post-truth’, when scientists are urged to become political activists as well as objective scientists, weather presenters beaming into public homes have the opportunity to join them, and cover topics like climate change and uncertainty. Typically, however, the daily weather forecast on broadcast media will avoid any mention of climate change, anxious not to ‘mislead’ the public into thinking there is a causal link between weather events and climate change.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, there's an interesting talk on in the Customs House next Thursday.

https://www.met.ie/grand-day-for-it-how-forecasting-as-conversation-can-speak-beyond-weather-and-climate

I genuinely thought this was a parody, an upon a full read of the link, it reads like parody.

Still, it would be interesting the get Siobhan Ryan's thoughts on Dugin's 'The Forth Political Theory' while she is forecasting that weak front moving in for the SW for the 100th time this year. It sure would add some 'spice' to the main evening TV forecast! :rolleyes:

dense

Courtesy of WUWT:

A new study finds that climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.

Earlier we found that trying to reduce our personal carbon footprint is a waste of time, in spite of the EPA and numerous NGOs advising us to avail of their various carbon calculator services.

Now, this year long study also finds that those who were most worried about climate change live less sustainably than those who aren't.

The abstract is here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

With a report about the study here:

https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I genuinely thought this was a parody, an upon a full read of the link, it reads like parody.

Still, it would be interesting the get Siobhan Ryan's thoughts on Dugin's 'The Forth Political Theory' while she is forecasting that weak front moving in for the SW for the 100th time this year. It sure would add some 'spice' to the main evening TV forecast! :rolleyes:

All the while....

In his talk, Pádraig will argue that weather presenters and forecasters must realise both their political role and their social role.

Eh, no thanks Pádraig.

Oneiric 3

"weather presenters and forecasters must realise both their political role and their social role".

Weather presenters and forecasters don't have a 'political role'. This isn't what they signed up for. They are there to tell us whether it will rain or not, nothing more, nothing less.

I think we have enough pro-establishment revolutionary spokespeople in the mainstream as it is, and I think people are getting just the tiniest bit tired of them all.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, there's an interesting talk on in the Customs House next Thursday.

https://www.met.ie/grand-day-for-it-how-forecasting-as-conversation-can-speak-beyond-weather-and-climate

Are you genuinely interested in this talk or is it a joke. There's a lot of very social scientific words in that link.
If you do go, give us a review afterwards.

From my perspective, I would like weather forecasting to stick strictly to the science and keep politics out of it entirely.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you genuinely interested in this talk or is it a joke. There's a lot of very social scientific words in that link.
If you do go, give us a review afterwards.

From my perspective, I would like weather forecasting to stick strictly to the science and keep politics out of it entirely.

No, I go to most of the IMS talks. Why do you think it's a joke?

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"weather presenters and forecasters must realise both their political role and their social role".

Weather presenters and forecasters don't have a 'political role'. This isn't what they signed up for. They are there to tell us whether it will rain or not, nothing more, nothing less.

I think we have enough pro-establishment revolutionary spokespeople in the mainstream as it is, and I think people are getting just the tiniest bit tired of them all.

Oh, I don't know; I mean, didn't An Taisce's John Gibbons let rip at ME for not enthusiastically jumping on the CC bandwagon?

I'm surprised that more catastrophe mongers haven't demanded that ME publicly step up to the plate and tell it like it is; after all, aren't they public employees, with an onus to inform the public of the coming self afflicted catastrophes, and in ideal positions for disseminating the establishment CC message of the joys of carbon taxes into homes daily?

If they're not willing to toe the line, we could replace them with properly programmed, quality 3D avatars.

We all of us need to act urgently after all.