CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Danno

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Don't have time for much details, but as has been frequently mentioned, the data for these global temperature series come from a range techniques and tools, many of which have changed overtime. As such, they need to be homogenised for an apples to apples comparison. This results in a change from the raw to the processed data.

All the homogenisation techniques must be tested and justified. As are the interpolation techniques. Everything is described in detail, tested and assessed by independent experts through the peer review process.

The pre and post processed data is made quite easy for anyone to get a hold of, and all the methods used are published for people to check. It certainly isn't underhanded or hidden.

Any valid criticism therefor has to be about the homogenisation methods employed, with some kind of proof that they are faulty and result in a less accurate picture of global temperatures.

You really think the above justifies this:



Temperature recording in Valentia has been taking place since the late 1800s. Very little has changed with regards to landscape there - no urbanisation or massive land use changes.

Why the "need" to alter the raw data?

Retr0gamer

Actually, yes, yes it does justify it. If you understood what they were talking about you'd know that.

However 'independent experts through the peer review process' can be a little hard to understand for some people. Basically the people that carried it out know better than you why and know the scientific reason why and it was also carried out under the scrutiny of the scientific community to ensure that there was no funny business and that the end result would stand up to scrutiny.

Danno

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Actually, yes, yes it does justify it.

Really? Because the WMO says that:

The aim of climate data homogenization is to adjust climate records, if necessary, to remove non-climatic factors so that the temporal variations in the adjusted data reflect only the variations due to climate processes.

From: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/CA_4.php

Now, I'll ask again, what non-climatic factors were affecting Valentia's temperature that it was necessary to remove up to 1c from the raw data.

Surely, non-climatic factors cause temperatures to increase over time?

So, was there a huge car park just beside Valentia that fell gradually into the sea over the last 100 years? Do tell, I'm genuinely interested!

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

- no urbanisation or massive land use changes.

This is an image of downtown Valentia island back in the early 1900s.

Retr0gamer

Danno wrote: »

Really? Because the WMO says that:



From: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/CA_4.php

Now, I'll ask again, what non-climatic factors were affecting Valentia's temperature that it was necessary to remove up to 1c from the raw data.

Surely, non-climatic factors cause temperatures to increase over time?

So, was there a huge car park just beside Valentia that fell gradually into the sea over the last 100 years? Do tell, I'm genuinely interested!

You see that's a good example of cherry picking due to bias.

You see temperatures adjusted by 1 degree Celsius.

What I see is a trend that shows an increase in temperature of about 1.5 degrees Celsius in less than 150 years which is an enormous amount in a very short span of time especially when you considering vast amounts of energy required to increase temperatures by that much.

Also the car park falling into the sea is another example of confirmation bias. Sure it didn't happen in Valentia but then again there's been a huge increase in extreme weather incidents in the last few years. Australia is burning after all.

But then again that's just the difference between the confirmation bias of a climate change denier or anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist and a scientist.

Oneiric 3

Retr0gamer wrote: »

but then again there's been a huge increase in extreme weather incidents in the last few years.

There has?

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well that there just shows your complete and utter ignorance of how scientists actually operate. Scientists would never carry out tests based on 'intuition'. If they did it would call into question their work by other professionals. The reason is if you carry out an experiment and/or analysis like this you introduce bias and there is a danger you will cherry pick data to make it fit the model you are proposing. It's a very dangerous way of carrying out work and is rightfully shunned by the scientific community. You can take that from an actual scientist that deals with this everyday.

Scientists look at data, see trends and then try to make sense of those trends through experimentation and analysis to find the causes of these trends. In this case global temperatures were observed to be rising massively over what was expected to occur naturally (a scientific fact) and through analysis and experimentation the scientific community has narrowed the cause to man made pollution.

The danger with basing theories on intuition is that you end up being biased and cherry picking data and information to fit your story. This is how conspiracy theories work and is how climate change deniers justify their quite frankly ludicrous assumptions. But then again what can you expect from these crazies right? They apparently know better.

The climate science fraternity have done exactly that, based all their research on a presupposition that increasing CO2 causes warming. Hence they based their models on this, yet these models still fail to fetch the warming right. All this is according to a retired research program manager at NOAA, the video of which none of you wanted to watch yesterday.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Don't have time for much details, but as has been frequently mentioned, the data for these global temperature series come from a range techniques and tools, many of which have changed overtime. As such, they need to be homogenised for an apples to apples comparison. This results in a change from the raw to the processed data.

All the homogenisation techniques must be tested and justified. As are the interpolation techniques. Everything is described in detail, tested and assessed by independent experts through the peer review process.

The pre and post processed data is made quite easy for anyone to get a hold of, and all the methods used are published for people to check. It certainly isn't underhanded or hidden.

Any valid criticism therefor has to be about the homogenisation methods employed, with some kind of proof that they are faulty and result in a less accurate picture of global temperatures.

Bollox. Nowhere can I find details on what was done to the raw Valentia data to give the final curve shown. If you can give me a link to this (when you have time) then great, otherwise You're just waffling.

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Actually, yes, yes it does justify it. If you understood what they were talking about you'd know that.

However 'independent experts through the peer review process' can be a little hard to understand for some people. Basically the people that carried it out know better than you why and know the scientific reason why and it was also carried out under the scrutiny of the scientific community to ensure that there was no funny business and that the end result would stand up to scrutiny.

You're not the only one here who works in scientific research, so instead of lecturing us on peer review, please show details on exactly what was done to the Met Éireann dataset I posted to get the GISS hockey stick.

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You see that's a good example of cherry picking due to bias.

You see temperatures adjusted by 1 degree Celsius.

What I see is a trend that shows an increase in temperature of about 1.5 degrees Celsius in less than 150 years which is an enormous amount in a very short span of time especially when you considering vast amounts of energy required to increase temperatures by that much.

Also the car park falling into the sea is another example of confirmation bias. Sure it didn't happen in Valentia but then again there's been a huge increase in extreme weather incidents in the last few years. Australia is burning after all.

But then again that's just the difference between the confirmation bias of a climate change denier or anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist and a scientist.

I think with that reply you're showing that you don't really know all you let on to know.

Retr0gamer

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

There has?

Yes there has. It's been documented and reported and peer reviewed. To deny otherwise is to show bias.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The climate science fraternity have done exactly that, based all their research on a presupposition that increasing CO2 causes warming. Hence they based their models on this, yet these models still fail to fetch the warming right. All this is according to a retired research program manager at NOAA, the video of which none of you wanted to watch yesterday.

One retired NOAA worker. Out of hundreds if not thousands. Also if you look at his resume you will find that he is a big right winger now and has vested interests in discrediting climate change considering his investment and work in Aerospace. So he is pretty much on par with Andrew Wakefield.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Bollox. Nowhere can I find details on what was done to the raw Valentia data to give the final curve shown. If you can give me a link to this (when you have time) then great, otherwise You're just waffling.

They're there, published and peer reviewed.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You're not the only one here who works in scientific research, so instead of lecturing us on peer review, please show details on exactly what was done to the Met Éireann dataset I posted to get the GISS hockey stick.

No I'm not the only one but I can tell you now that anyone on here denying climate change has never worked in scientific research.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think with that reply you're showing that you don't really know all you let on to know.

I do unfortunately. People with confirmation bias react poorly with being shown the truth.

oriel36

This is for the reader with common sense in a thread that severely lacks it.

I brought the word 'intuitive' into the discussion via the mathematician Pascal, not as an isolated term but as a balance between those who operate from an experimental point of departure as opposed to those who put a narrative together that inspired and promoted further research. The clear example is that the works of Steno and Smith led to plate tectonics through Wegener while Darwin's notions led to the crematoria. The three men who expanded geological and biological evolution had talent and were not particularly welcomed by their contemporary academic communities. That is the way science works as the dullards are fond of saying.

If becoming a doctor or an engineer then sure, a rigid process to maintain competence is required as the subject material is before people and no speculative conclusions are allowed. In astronomy and Earth sciences no such process can be applied to the intuitive/perceptive talent to work with many intertwining components without taking shortcuts or distorting the physical considerations to suit a conclusion.

The make-it-up-as-you-go-along of experimental theorists lacks common sense as they display no perceptive discipline in what should be a positive Earth science topic like climate.


The mathematicians can't help themselves trying to 'define' intuition when intuitive people know it when they see it in a work of music , Earth science or astronomy such as the aforementioned reasoning that led to plate tectonics. The 'scientific method' boys insist on peer review when it comes to Earth sciences but that is a heap of b****x as talent is all that is required to inspect what is in front of observers as the empiricists are joyless and talentless when it comes to linking the planet's motions with Earth sciences.

Retr0gamer

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Bollox. Nowhere can I find details on what was done to the raw Valentia data to give the final curve shown. If you can give me a link to this (when you have time) then great, otherwise You're just waffling.

Just to address this, the reason you can't find these details is that the only person talking about them is a raving climate denying lunatic talking about them on his personal blog. So lets just discount that there as utter nonsense. The man has been pretty much disgraced.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Bollox. Nowhere can I find details on what was done to the raw Valentia data to give the final curve shown. If you can give me a link to this (when you have time) then great, otherwise You're just waffling.

Ask NASA then!

M.T. Cranium

I am stumped by the response I got to the quote from the IPCC report of their own estimate that natural variation is 0.1 C. This is not my estimate so how could I have "made it up?" My estimate is two thirds of observed warming at any given location 1890 to 2020 (or 1998, seems to have gone flat since then).

As to intuition and science, surely all of you realize that we would have nothing had it not been for the intuition of giants of scientific innovation in the past.

I feel like I am talking to people from a cult, even the JWs offer somewhat more insightful responses than climate science trekkies. But then I can always turn to Oriel36 for a brisk exchange of views. The problem there is, after the exchange I still have no idea what his views really are.

(gives head a shake and bangs it against a wall repeatedly)

Anyway, it was not my intention to frame a rehash of all old arguments between the IPCC and skeptics. My intention is to state as clearly as possible that natural variability is a big deal in climate and should be accepted as such. We didn't slay natural variability with our greenhouse gases. But we are playing around with it and the results cannot really be known with much certainty. The best response we can make is to plan for worst case scenarios instead of listening to the uninformed speculations of non-experts who want to lecture us into a new dark age just to keep sea levels constant forever. They never were in the past, people adapt and move on (or at least up).

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Just your roundabout way of saying that you haven't a clue, while still maintaining that you are right.

All I'm saying is that if people think NASA are doing something wrong they should ask NASA. Why would I or anyone else here know the answers better than they? Or have you made your mind up about their guilt without them having a say?

posidonia

Danno wrote: »

You really think the above justifies this:



Temperature recording in Valentia has been taking place since the late 1800s. Very little has changed with regards to landscape there - no urbanisation or massive land use changes.

Why the "need" to alter the raw data?

Again, ask NASA! They are the people who did the data QCing - not me, not anyone else here.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

As to intuition and science, surely all of you realize that we would have nothing had it not been for the intuition of giants of scientific innovation in the past.

I feel like I am talking to people from a cult, even the JWs offer somewhat more insightful responses than climate science trekkies. But then I can always turn to Oriel36 for a brisk exchange of views. The problem there is, after the exchange I still have no idea what his views really are.

I don't see any humility, what I see are people trying to puff themselves up through various designs by making genuine climate research small. I am sure the wider public have been lulled into a sense that there is some mechanical peer review process involved in astronomy and Earth sciences but while that may work with professional careers in medicine or engineering, the whole thing is bogus and counter-productive in astronomy and Earth sciences.


You rightly point out that you have no idea what I am saying and that is fair enough but consider this - the people who could probably find climate research , other Earth sciences or astronomy as they actually exist to be both enjoyable and satisfying yet they don't come to these forums nor probably know how talented they actually are dealing with all the causes and effects.

Bang your head all you wish, that won't make the slightest difference, the damage was done in younger days through the classrooms of schools and colleges when you were told what to think and how to think within an empirical modeling umbrella -

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/newton-principia-rules-reasoning.pdf

You are allowed to 'make up' things all you wish as long as you maintain physical considerations so despite the silly idea of mathematicians that intuition is guesswork or counter-intuitive is contrary to physical considerations, the latter is just an indulgence by undisciplined people who makes themselves bigger than the topic being discussed.

There is no such thing as counter-intuitive but there is such a thing as counter-productive and within that distinction is all that is wrong and right about this era.

Gaoth Laidir

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Just to address this, the reason you can't find these details is that the only person talking about them is a raving climate denying lunatic talking about them on his personal blog. So lets just discount that there as utter nonsense. The man has been pretty much disgraced.

Who's that you're talking about? Am I missing something?

You're quick in with the replies but not much in the way of anything meaningful or helpful, like a link to these alleged details that "are there, published and peer-reviewed". Just in case you missed it, I'm talking about the adjustments made to the Valentia data. A general one-size-fits-all statement on the website that claims that datasets are corrected for urban heat island just doesn't cut it in this case.

While you're at it, please also explain where the 1930s data for Knock Airport came from, given that it was a barren hilltop until the airport opened until 50 years later. I don't see any peer-reviewed papers "out there" on that one either.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if people think NASA are doing something wrong they should ask NASA. Why would I or anyone else here know the answers better than they? Or have you made your mind up about their guilt without them having a say?

Jesus, you're getting like Oriel now, repeating the same thing over and over. You and a few others are quick to dish out the questions, yet are severely lacking when it comes to giving answers yourself. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this subject, yet you try to give the impression you do. Apparently, according to our esteemed gamer cat mod scientific researcher above, everything's out there if we want to get it. He hasn't bothered/been able to provide any evidence of this, so I guess that makes two spoofers on the thread. Akrasia has just not bothered to reply as it's clear he has no answer either, but at least he didn't waste bandwidth pretending he did.

posidonia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I am stumped by the response I got to the quote from the IPCC report of their own estimate that natural variation is 0.1 C. This is not my estimate so how could I have "made it up?" My estimate is two thirds of observed warming at any given location 1890 to 2020 (or 1998, seems to have gone flat since then).

As to intuition and science, surely all of you realize that we would have nothing had it not been for the intuition of giants of scientific innovation in the past.

I feel like I am talking to people from a cult, even the JWs offer somewhat more insightful responses than climate science trekkies. But then I can always turn to Oriel36 for a brisk exchange of views. The problem there is, after the exchange I still have no idea what his views really are.

(gives head a shake and bangs it against a wall repeatedly)

Anyway, it was not my intention to frame a rehash of all old arguments between the IPCC and skeptics. My intention is to state as clearly as possible that natural variability is a big deal in climate and should be accepted as such. We didn't slay natural variability with our greenhouse gases. But we are playing around with it and the results cannot really be known with much certainty. The best response we can make is to plan for worst case scenarios instead of listening to the uninformed speculations of non-experts who want to lecture us into a new dark age just to keep sea levels constant forever. They never were in the past, people adapt and move on (or at least up).

The problem is this.


People like me have watch weather and climate all our lives. I know weather is and was variable - of course it is/was!


What I'm also open to is the science that says the warming we're seeing is due to humanities activities (ghgs, land use changes, aerosols). It's IN ADDITION TO natural variability.



Why does that openness mean I'm part of a cult?

Gaoth Laidir

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I am stumped by the response I got to the quote from the IPCC report of their own estimate that natural variation is 0.1 C. This is not my estimate so how could I have "made it up?" My estimate is two thirds of observed warming at any given location 1890 to 2020 (or 1998, seems to have gone flat since then).

As to intuition and science, surely all of you realize that we would have nothing had it not been for the intuition of giants of scientific innovation in the past.

I feel like I am talking to people from a cult, even the JWs offer somewhat more insightful responses than climate science trekkies. But then I can always turn to Oriel36 for a brisk exchange of views. The problem there is, after the exchange I still have no idea what his views really are.

(gives head a shake and bangs it against a wall repeatedly)

Anyway, it was not my intention to frame a rehash of all old arguments between the IPCC and skeptics. My intention is to state as clearly as possible that natural variability is a big deal in climate and should be accepted as such. We didn't slay natural variability with our greenhouse gases. But we are playing around with it and the results cannot really be known with much certainty. The best response we can make is to plan for worst case scenarios instead of listening to the uninformed speculations of non-experts who want to lecture us into a new dark age just to keep sea levels constant forever. They never were in the past, people adapt and move on (or at least up).

I think the whole thing has evolved to a point now where the pro-anthro crowd see the only way to continue is to up the ante and proclaim it now a climate "crisis", gathering momentum in the media, cashing in on the Greta fad, all in the attempt to paper of the growing cracks in their evidence that it's all 100% anthro. It's fooling a lot of people, it has to be said, but not everyone. As you say, to suddenly go from a significant natural effect to now none (there is no natural signal in climate anymore) is more than a little strange, but those who are able to think critically for themselves can see that this is absolutely not the case. Your data will hopefully add to the overwhelming body of evidence to prove that it's not all down to us.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Jesus, you're getting like Oriel now, repeating the same thing over and over. You and a few others are quick to dish out the questions, yet are severely lacking when it comes to giving answers yourself. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this subject, yet you try to give the impression you do. Apparently, according to our esteemed gamer cat mod scientific researcher above, everything's out there if we want to get it. He hasn't bothered/been able to provide any evidence of this, so I guess that makes two spoofers on the thread. Akrasia has just not bothered to reply as it's clear he has no answer either, but at least he didn't waste bandwidth pretending he did.

I'm not pretending to be an expert , because I'm not - I listen to, read and ask experts.



I just don't understand why you and others simply point blank refuse to ask questions of the people who produce the global climate data sets. Instead you keep asking me to answer for them. Why would I know? I don't produce the global climate data sets. I don't QC weather data. Why ask me?



Again, you and other have questions (and allegations) you like to make about global climate data sets so why not put those points to the people who produce the data sets?



It just beats me why you wont.

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

The problem is this.


People like me have watch weather and climate all our lives. I know weather is and was variable - of course it is/was!


What I'm also open to is the science that says the warming we're seeing is due to humanities activities (ghgs, land use changes, aerosols). It's IN ADDITION TO natural variability.



Why does that openness mean I'm part of a cult?

Nope, try to keep up. Akrasia has stated that the recent warming has been more than 100% anthropogenic, whatever that means. Absolute nonsense.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think the whole thing has evolved to a point now where the pro-anthro crowd see the only way to continue is to up the ante and proclaim it now a climate "crisis", gathering momentum in the media, cashing in on the Greta fad, all in the attempt to paper of the growing cracks in their evidence that it's all 100% anthro. It's fooling a lot of people, it has to be said, but not everyone. As you say, to suddenly go from a significant natural effect to now none (there is no natural signal in climate anymore) is more than a little strange, but those who are able to think critically for themselves can see that this is absolutely not the case. Your data will hopefully add to the overwhelming body of evidence to prove that it's not all down to us.

Sounds to me like you mind is closed to the possibility there is a big anthro effect? Would I be right to assume that?

Gaoth Laidir

posidonia wrote: »

I'm not pretending to be an expert , because I'm not - I listen to, read and ask experts.



I just don't understand why you and others simply point blank refuse to ask questions of the people who produce the global climate data sets. Instead you keep asking me to answer for them. Why would I know? I don't produce the global climate data sets. I don't QC weather data. Why ask me?



Again, you and other have questions (and allegations) you like to make about global climate data sets so why not put those points to the people who produce the data sets?



It just beats me why you wont.

This is the science forum, so maybe the odd scientific debate takes place from time to time. I and others are asking valid questions to those who claim that the answers are out there, they know that for sure. If they're genuine about this then they'll provide these answers so that we can accept and move on. Of course, they're just spoofing.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Nope, try to keep up. Akrasia has stated that the recent warming has been more than 100% anthropogenic, whatever that means. Absolute nonsense.

How do you know it's nonsense? Are you an expert now? This explains how. "These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.". See?



You go on about people like me but you really need to look in the mirror - oh, and stop spoofing...

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

This is the science forum, so maybe the odd scientific debate takes place from time to time. I and others are asking valid questions to those who claim that the answers are out there, they know that for sure. If they're genuine about this then they'll provide these answers so that we can accept and move on. Of course, they're just spoofing.

But, the people to ask questions about the global climate data sets are the people who have produced them.


Surely?



Why ask me? Why would I know better than them???

oriel36

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Your data will hopefully add to the overwhelming body of evidence to prove that it's not all down to us.

What a silly position and much like Jeremy Corbyn in response to the Tory screw-up that is brexit where a small group gained prominence and dumped a conviction on the electorate. You can't be half way in and half way out because that is no balance but complete and utter mediocrity.

None of you discuss climate anyway, it is an experimental conviction passing itself off as an Earth science and that means the problem is the self-serving 'scientific method' where the greenhouse people and opponents like yourselves are both sides of the dull and dour empirical coin.

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE

(Page 68) As Normal, people listening to mainstream corporate, media outlets that are uneducated fools !! I left several links to Youtube, mainly Patrick Moore, just to get another extremely educated view from decades of dedicated research and findings. No scientist anywhere across the western world has ever contradicted his "facts", why? because they cant !! Please stop putting up links from The Guardian and its ilk, that is 10th hand info, then written in text by fools being paid via corporate and government bodies (same as the 30 odd thousand labs looking for monies and bigger budgets every year) as the links state "A denier of climate change? No"!! A Believer in the "Green" reasons why governments will try and brainwash the masses of sheep (and have already succeeded)...No! When 87'ish' % of the world's human race believes in some form of unproven, unfound, unrealistic bull**** religion then it ain't hard to coerce and brainwash the masses. It's hard to prove people wrong but its a harder job getting them to accept that they could be wrong.