global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[swansont]

Swansont, I have no idea if the graph is accurate. My point is that it is an artists rendition that is claimed to be based on data. It is up to those making the claim to prove their case. If someone wishes to provide graphs from Meehl et al and Jones and Moberg et al I will happily concede the point. Until then it can only be described as "a pretty picture" rather than "evidence".

 

Why can't this be said of any data turned into a graph? "Prove to me they didn't make a mistake making the graph?" That's setting the bar way too low.

 

 

So which data is right, raw or adjusted? Is the adjustment correct? GISS don't sat why they adjust data from certain staions or comment on the magnitude of the adjustments. You want to claim the data is fine? Then find the place in the US that regularly has 60+⁰ temps that Atmoz found in the CRU data. Either there have been new US temp records set or there is something wrong with the data, they can't both be right.

 

Atmoz can stop playing guessing games and point to where the data come from. Until then it sounds like a five-year old playing a game.

 

You'll note the differences are a bit more than .003 degrees. Which of these should you calibrate the models to?

 

How big are the uncertainties?

 

I posted a graph earlier showing the Raw/Adjusted difference for Wellington NZ to demonstrate that many of these adjustments are not trivial in size.

 

Where does one obtain this data?

[JohnB]

Why can't this be said of any data turned into a graph?

Graphed data from a paper is fine. My point is that this graph is an artists rendering, rather than from the paper. I've read Meehl et el (Bascules link) and I'll be blowed if I can find anything in it that this picture could possibly be based on. If you can find something, point it out and I'll eat crow.

 

Bottom line, the artists rendering is claimed to be based on two papers, I have read one of these papers and can find no factual basis for the claim. If it can be shown I've missed something, show me. Otherwise the only possible conclusion is that the claim that the graph is at least partly based on Meehl et al is falsified and the claim untrue.

Atmoz can stop playing guessing games and point to where the data come from.

The data is available from NOAA. Full d/load is circa 21,000 files @ 185 MB. Frankly I do wonder that Atmoz can't find the site as Anthony Watts explanation shows that columns 35-49 give the Latitude and Longditude for the station involved.

 

TBH I'm getting tired of having to take other peoples word for data results. Does anyone know of a script or simple program that extracts and plots data from these .txt files that an untrained but (I hope) not unintelligent person can use?

How big are the uncertainties?

Hm, the fist is lifted from Hansen et al 1996. While the paper does mention problems with some of the data, there are no mentions of uncertainties. If this is a problem, then it is one that only Dr. Hansen can fix. The second graph is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ , where this comment is made;

Our estimated error (2σ, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05°C in recent years to 0.1°C at the beginning of the 20th century.

Where does one obtain this data?

The data is direct from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2 . The graph is generated by a program from Appinsys that they call Climate Data Visualiser. This allows the user to specify the nation or specific station, the program then retrieves the data from either NOAA or HADCRUT (whichever you choose) for that/those station/s and generates the graph. Pretty cool really. It also allows you find station data based on Lat/Long if that's all you have.

 

All graphs of this type that I post are generated in this manner. When I first found the site I generated some graphs and did random spot checks (about 30, 3 random checks each for 10 randomly selected GHCN stations) comparing the values in the graphs to the actual NOAA data that I d/loaded directly from NOAA. I found no inconsistencies and can therefore see no reason to believe the generated graphs are anything but accurate representations of the NOAA GHCN data. Is that acceptable verification for the graphs?

 

I'd love to find something similar for the CRN data.

Edited June 9, 2008 by JohnB

[jryan]

 

I love this graph. Never has more nothing been used so often to try and prove something.

 

This forcings method of finding the AGW smoking gun is like coming home to find your car stolen, ruling out the neighbor because he is on vacation, ruling out your wife because she is still at work, and then accusing the family dog because you have ruled out all other possibilities.

 

The standard error on that chart for AGW is larger than the predicted value of AGW (1.6 predicted to 1.8 error range).. and that is accepting that the numeric values given actually relate to the real world in some fahion.

 

After that realization you get to the AGW that is supposedly certain (0.6 Quatlus, or whatever name is given to this value) and realize that that is only because we assume that we actually know all possible climate forcers. The AGW is simply attributed to the warming that the forcing model can't account for.

 

So what they are doing is creating a model that can not model observed temperatures, and then throwing in a single forcer that brings is into somewhat agreement with the observation, and calling that forcer AGW.

 

It is comical.

[iNow]

The standard error on that chart for AGW is larger than the predicted value of AGW (1.6 predicted to 1.8 error range).. and that is accepting that the numeric values given actually relate to the real world in some fahion.

<...>

It is comical.

Perhaps you should learn to read the graph, then, and it wouldn't appear so funy.

 

The biggest contributor of the error is the cloud albedo effect, not CO₂, the effect of which is demonstrated with a very tight error bar.

 

Pretty much your entire post was a strawman anyway, so I'm going to stop there when demonstrating your inability to accurately describe what is happening.

[jryan]

Perhaps you should learn to read the graph, then, and it wouldn't appear so funy.

 

The biggest contributor of the error is the cloud albedo effect, not CO₂, the effect of which is demonstrated with a very tight error bar.

 

Pretty much your entire post was a strawman anyway, so I'm going to stop there when demonstrating your inability to accurately describe what is happening.

 

This is comical as well.... what difference does it make WHERE the error comes from? My point is still that the error is more than the estimate. It doesn't matter if the error is coming from a positive or negative forcing. If you want to explain why a positive or negative forcing standard error makes a diffrence in the determined AGW forcing, feel free to air it. But right now you are simply saying "poe-TAY-toe" to my "poe-TAH-toe" and pretending you have proven that we are talking about oranges.

[iNow]

This is comical as well.... what difference does it make WHERE the error comes from?

If you have to ask this question, then I suggest that you have absolutely no place arguing against the conclusions of these thousands of studies which rebut your points.

[CarolAlynn]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but i think that global warming was put on the political agenda to push a world wide carbon tax, which would go to fund a world government, also global warming is a scare tactic just like 911, used to take away freedoms from people.

[iNow]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but i think that global warming was put on the political agenda to push a world wide carbon tax, which would go to fund a world government, also global warming is a scare tactic just like 911, used to take away freedoms from people.

 

How exactly does that change the mountains of data which says this is more than a conspiracy?

 

Hint: It doesn't.

[SkepticLance]

I seriously doubt that Carol is correct in her ideas of what motivates the theorists. However, there is no doubt that the whole global climate change issue has been heavily politicised, and that we need to be enormously sceptical about the details. When we see ex candidates for the American presidency making movies about it, and others pushing for enormous (many millions) research funding, you need to take it all with a very big pinch of salt.

[iNow]

So, which studies are wrong, exactly?

[SH3RL0CK]

So, which studies are wrong, exactly?

 

Perhaps they are all wrong, considering the consensus on global cooling in the 70's along with the same urgent demands for drastic changes to our lifestyle then.

 

I myself am very skeptical about some aspects regarding the global warming debate, and I agree with some of the aspects. I haven't discussed anything on it as the science is well beyond my expertise since I am not a climatologist.

 

Its just that there is so VERY much money concerned (with either the carbon taxes or with the consequences of GW, not to mention the vast amounts of taxdollars required for further studies) and so much emotion involved that its very hard for me to imagine that science is the main motivation for most of the scientists and pundits. This doesn't make the science necessarily wrong, but it certainly fuels suspicions.

[iNow]

Perhaps they are all wrong

 

Notice my use of the word "exactly" when asking which studies are wrong. Unfortunately, your "perhaps" just fails in terms of basic rigor.

 

Concerns of politics, economics, and bias in media don't address the science.

 

I'll ask a different way for those paying only minimal attention...

 

PRECISELY which studies are wrong?

[SH3RL0CK]

Inow, I'm afraid you mis-understood my point. It is certain, given the disagreements here, that at least some of the studies are flawed. So how can an interested, but skeptical person as myself know which studies, if any, are correct?

 

While concerns of politics, economics, bias, etc. doesn't address science, certainly bias, politics, economics, etc. can generate, whether intentional or not, incorrect studies. And it doesn't help that the so-called best scientists of the 70's were (seemingly) so very wrong, yet were so very convinced and had the exact same solution in mind because this implies an agenda of some sort.

 

To convince me of global warming (or not) and the extent, the causes, the solutions, etc. I need to KNOW which studies are right. I won't be easily convinced because of 1) the disagreements between the studies, 2) the apparently incorrect cries of global cooling in the 70's, and 3) Climatologists and pundits stand to gain financially from this "crisis" at my expense.

 

The second point really hurts your argument the most because the climatologists seem to be crying "wolf", and removes the ability of the "consensus" of the scientists to convince me. There seemed to be less disagreement about global cooling than there is today about global warming, and these scientists were apparently absolutely wrong.

 

So I need to have proof that a study is correct, before I will allow myself to get seriously involved which will, most likely, cost me dearly in terms of dollars and freedoms. On the other hand, global warming will not cost me anything if it is not real and may not cost me much if it is indeed real (again, which study is correct?).

 

But I don't know how you can prove a study to be correct because of the points I mentioned above.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

All this gets nowhere. I have, in the past, pointed out to you, with references, regions of doubt and uncertainty. Such as :

- the lack of ability to model the effect of cloud formation.

- the new information recently on oceanic currents, which affect climate in ways the models did not predict.

- the fact that Arctic sea ice last winter grew to an extent unpredicted.

- the fact that Arctic sea ice before that shrank to a degree much greater than predicted.

- the fact that the bulk of the Antarctic continent is cooling rather than warming, against predictions.

 

All these are areas where studies and models are weak if not flawed. However, in spite of long protracted argument with you, and the presentation of evidence showing clearly that these are areas of doubt and uncertainty, you still act as if there was no doubt and uncertainty.

 

After all this, you still ask for details of where global climate studies are flawed. Is there any point answering?

[JohnB]

SH3RLOCK, your point 2 is actually incorrect. While it is true that there were some scientists in the 70s that warned of catastophic cooling, this was by no means a widely accepted idea. There were almost certainly less than 10 papers published supporting the concept.

 

However, the media then as now loves a good apocalypse and blew the story out of all proportion.

[Reaper]

- the lack of ability to model the effect of cloud formation.

- the new information recently on oceanic currents, which affect climate in ways the models did not predict.

- the fact that Arctic sea ice last winter grew to an extent unpredicted.

- the fact that Arctic sea ice before that shrank to a degree much greater than predicted.

- the fact that the bulk of the Antarctic continent is cooling rather than warming, against predictions.

 

Claim 1 is wrong.

 

I would appreciate if you found a reputable source for claim 2.

 

Claim 3 has already been debunked in a previous thread

 

Claim 4 is the only correct one, but that was based on an older model (which have improved since then). So, I'll give you that much.

 

Claim 5 needs a source as well.

[bascule]

The reference to forcings leads here.

 

Yep, sorry about that, that would be the correct paper (they cite this as well: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5632/479?ijkey=4451f674156aabdeaa7e2ec55a08f5b1bfe226d7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

 

There is no mention here of using actual measured values. (Something that I have asked for before.)

 

No, the values aren't measured because there's no way to quantitatively measure them, especially on a global scale.

 

Loose translation of the first sentence above: "We did 1 run using our estimate of each individual forcing, then 8 runs where we varied our estimates." Wanna bet they compared each run to the climate record before varying the estimates? I'm willing to be wrong here as the actual paper is behind a paywall, so if someone can provide the methodology used in the paper (with quotes) I'll concede the point.

 

I'd love to, but I'm probably running into the same problem as you:

 

"The article you have requested is available via Journal Subscription or Single Article Purchase"

 

All this gets nowhere. I have, in the past, pointed out to you, with references, regions of doubt and uncertainty. Such as :

- the lack of ability to model the effect of cloud formation.

 

Have I not told you a billion times that I personally worked on modeling how long term variabilities in cloud formation affect the general circulation of air, within the scope of a GCM? I can personally attest that this problem is being worked on because I helped work on it, regardless of how many times you claim it is not...

[SkepticLance]

bascule said :

 

"Have I not told you a billion times that I personally worked on modeling how long term variabilities in cloud formation affect the general circulation of air, within the scope of a GCM? I can personally attest that this problem is being worked on because I helped work on it, regardless of how many times you claim it is not... "

 

You are correct in saying the problem is being worked on. I never denied that. However, unless there have been some major break-throughs recently, the problem is still a problem.

 

http://www.open.ac.uk/earth-research/spicer/INTAS/Climate1.html

[iNow]

I think it is my point which is being missed.

 

Hand waving and doubt sowing is not a valid method of demonstrating falsehoods and mistakes.

 

 

If you challenge the science, then be specific.

 

Which studies are wrong?

What is the nature of the error?

What is it's magnitude and scope?

How does that error impact the greater knowledge we have?

Does this single error negate the work of the other THOUSANDS of studies on the topic?

 

 

At present, you're basically trying to convince everyone in your middle school that little Sally is a slut by suggesting that she's easy. How about some photos and evidence of your claim?

[SH3RL0CK]

SH3RLOCK, your point 2 is actually incorrect. While it is true that there were some scientists in the 70s that warned of catastophic cooling, this was by no means a widely accepted idea. There were almost certainly less than 10 papers published supporting the concept.

 

However, the media then as now loves a good apocalypse and blew the story out of all proportion.

 

JohnB, Though I do not recall it as such, I will accept your statement that global cooling was not as widely accepted in the 70's as global warming is accepted today. Still, it cannot be denied that this false cry of destruction has resulted in a loss of credibility for climatologists. They were wrong then, perhaps they are wrong today.

 

Inow, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. You are asking me to accept all the claims regarding global warming unless absolutely proved otherwise. I, on the other hand, insist on rock-solid proof on these claims before fully accepting them.

 

I do not dispute that climate has warmed in recent years, but I remain undecided on the causes and the solutions, especially since there is a wide range of opinion on this, even among ardent supporters of global warming, notwithstanding the seemingly valid criticisms of global warming.

 

I am especially skeptical since the tactics of some of the ardent supporters of global warming (certainly not all, this is not a personal attack on anyone here) appear to me as no better than used car salesmen, with their urgency for everyone to act now, to spend lots of money (especially by giving it to them), to avoid answers on valid criticisms, to attack their critics, etc.

 

Because of this, I am not going to radically alter my lifestyle on the basis of unproven and bad science - and I will certainly resist efforts on the part of others to force me to do this. If global warming were absolutely proven, with irrefutable evidence of catastrophe unless humanity does radically change, then I would support such actions. But not until then. Why should we wreck our economy, and the environment (since China isn't going to change, but will gladly build stuff for us and anyone else who will buy, environment be dam*ed) and then perhaps find out we did so for absolutely no reason?

 

You however are free to change your lifestyle accordingly, and to continue to attempt to persuade others to do likewise.

[iNow]

Inow, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. You are asking me to accept all the claims regarding global warming unless absolutely proved otherwise.

To be clear... No. I am not.

 

I am simply asking that challenges to the data be specific. It shouldn't be that hard. That's what science is all about.

 

I can appreciate your desire for rock solid evidence, but if you think what we have already is not rock solid, then I'm concerned nothing will ever be good enough for you. It's okay to make the end zone hard to reach, but you can't make it impossible to reach.

 

I say again. The politics and the reaction have nothing to do with the science. If you challenge the science, then be specific and address the questions I posed above.

[bascule]

I am simply asking that challenges to the data be specific. It shouldn't be that hard. That's what science is all about.

 

That's why I posted this thread which so far hasn't had a lot of takers...

[SH3RL0CK]

To be clear... No. I am not.

 

I am simply asking that challenges to the data be specific. It shouldn't be that hard. That's what science is all about.

 

I can appreciate your desire for rock solid evidence, but if you think what we have already is not rock solid, then I'm concerned nothing will ever be good enough for you. It's okay to make the end zone hard to reach, but you can't make it impossible to reach.

 

I say again. The politics and the reaction have nothing to do with the science. If you challenge the science, then be specific and address the questions I posed above.

 

I am glad you are not asking me to accept on face value all the claims regarding global warming. I can accept the climate has warmed in recent years, I think the data exists for this.

 

However, how much warming has occurred? How much of this is caused by human activity and how much by other forcings? What will the consequences of this warming be? What can/should we do about it? These are not answered, and herein is the problem.

 

To take just one global warming claim to keep things simple, if current trends continue, what will the total rise of the oceans be due to icemelt and thermal expansion? 1 mm? 1 m? 100 m? I've heard all these claimed. Of course a 1 mm rise would rightly prompt no actions. But a 100 m would deserve immediate actions. But which of these will happen, though many numbers are claimed, no one really knows.

 

All I am asking is that we take no involuntary drastic actions until we know for certain (and certainly we don't as clearly demonstrated by other posters) what is really happening. There is very much to be skeptical about. If I will be required...forced...to sacrifice for this, solid proof, not speculations based on incomplete science, is still required.

[iNow]

All I am asking is that we take no involuntary drastic actions until we know for certain (and certainly we don't as clearly demonstrated by other posters) what is really happening. There is very much to be skeptical about. If I will be required...forced...to sacrifice for this, solid proof, not speculations based on incomplete science, is still required.

 

Out of curiostiy, if we had a medication put out into the pharmaceutical market by one of the big pharma companies, and 70% of the people who took that medication died, and all died of the same type of heart failure, should we also wait until we know for certain that they all didn't die from eating spinach, or from having too much sex, or from wearing purple shirts before we remove that medication from the market?

 

Come on. Why are we supposed to accept such a double standard when it comes to human impact on Earth's climate? This is completely assinine.

 

Should we be cautious and intelligent in our reaction? Of course, but how the hell are you defining caution if you're advocating the status quo (which interestingly seems predominated by ignorance and logical fallacy)?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

What a wonderful example of comparing apples and oranges!

 

As far as action on climate change is concerned - yes we should be acting. However, what should we be doing? There is an infinite continuum of opinion on this. One thing I have personally emphasized is that any action needs to be well managed and cautious, based on science and practical economics, not politics. Some actions to date have been quite the opposite and very damaging.

 

There are some things we can do now, without any harmful side effects, since these actions are based on tried and true technology, and techniques. Other actions being urged by those who are enthusiastic about mitigation of climate change are simply damn stupid. We need to know the difference, and apply that which makes sense.

 

For example : new nuclear power stations for electricity, combined with introduction of electric commuter vehicles makes sense, since these are known technologies. Adding iron to the oceans to stimulate phytoplankton growth does not, since the consequences are unknown.

 

A recent 'silly-bugger' idea is to add vast amounts of finely ground lime to the oceans, to absorb CO2.

H20 + CO2 + CaCO3 = Ca(HCO3)2

I am sure it will not be the last.