Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[ohmman]

Unlike the NYT I use the entire unaltered NOAA data series rather than an adjusted cherry-picked one like the Times uses and it paints a completely different picture.

OK, so I've gotten the data sets for 5 stations in and around Fort Worth and imported into Tableau. First, a few things. Your zip code shows that you're in Fort Worth. Weatherford doesn't appear to be your "hometown" NOAA station. There are stations much more central to Fort Worth, which you can find by going here.

What I did find about Weatherford is probably what you already knew when you selected it. It's a bit of a darling for your pal Heller. It has a cooling bias in the raw data that doesn't match with any of the regional stations:

Even Anthony Watts and Judith Curry used TOBS adjustments on the data to correct for this. And while many "skeptics" decried TOBS as "fake" or a "scandal," when pairwise homogenization was introduced, it confirmed those adjustments almost identically. You've posted that you're a triple-degreed scientist. Given that, I'm sure that you can understand the scientific value of removing instrumentation bias, yes? Berkeley Earth doesn't use TOBS adjustments - they show the raw data and perform comparisons to neighbor stations, and as new statistical methods are introduced, they continue to reinforce the effect of a TOBS bias.

It's possible you don't know the history of data collection at these stations. They were done primarily by volunteers on glass bulb and minimum/maximum thermometers at different times of day per station, but mainly in the afternoon when they were done with their work day. In the late 1950s, this was homogenized to a morning recording period. Data beginning in about 1960 will omit instrumentation and reading errors, along with the change in this time of observation bias. That TOBS bias introduces about a 0.3C cooling bias on average. This has been confirmed repeatedly.

If you think that selecting unique raw station data as a standalone analysis is better science than using regional averaging and homogenization, I would like to hear your scientific explanation for doing so. I'm also happy to collaborate with you on Tableau with your regional data but only if you are willing to use accepted scientific and statistical methods that aren't unique to climate data. The same methods scientists use on any sets of data series.

Let me know, and I'll send you an invite to collaborate. I'm certain it would be educational for both of us.

 

[cpa]

There are a few ironclad rules in life. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull on Superman's cape. (Apologies to Jim Croce.)

And you do not get into a scientific analysis and research battle with Ohmman.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I am curious how the evolution of instruments is taken into consideration. Was a thermometer in 1880 as accurate/repeatable as a 2010 thermometer?
Surely there is a method of normalizing data to make use of 'Old' data and merging into modern equipment data.
What technique is used to clean up data to make it usable for analysis without corrupting?

 

[nwdiver]

I am curious how the evolution of instruments is taken into consideration. Was a thermometer in 1880 as accurate/repeatable as a 2010 thermometer?
Surely there is a method of normalizing data to make use of 'Old' data and merging into modern equipment data.
What technique is used to clean up data to make it usable for analysis without corrupting?

Two points to that...

1 - The trend data is largely irrelevant because physics. One of the first climate change papers was published in 1896 with ZERO trend data but a ton of physics.

2 - We have isotopic data. The ratio of O-16/18 in ice changes with temperature so we have very accurate global temperature data going back >400k years.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Two points to that...

1 - The trend data is largely irrelevant because physics. One of the first climate change papers was published in 1896 with ZERO trend data but a ton of physics.

2 - We have isotopic data. The ratio of O-16/18 in ice changes with temperature so we have very accurate global temperature data going back >400k years.

I understand the second point - modern instruments looking at ice cores gives one stream of data. But don't weather forecasters look at recorded data collected using various quality of instruments and various quality of helpers gathering the data over hundreds of years?
And I must admit I don't understand your first point. Trend data is irrelevant because physics? Please dumb down your answer- went right past me.

 

[nwdiver]

Trend data is irrelevant because physics? Please dumb down your answer- went right past me.

We don't need trend data to understand climate change. I helps to confirm some of the predictions but it's largely a bit player. The theory is driven by understanding the rise in CO2 levels and understanding the change in radiative balance.

 

[SageBrush]

And I must admit I don't understand your first point. Trend data is irrelevant because physics? Please dumb down your answer- went right past me.

He is saying that the physics is is so clear cut that the trending will either be confirmatory or wrong.

My layman understanding is that heat accumulation is not in dispute in the scientific community (the physics) but the sensitivity (the average surface global warming to a doubling of CO2) is still a matter for some reasoned debate. The trend data informs this latter question.

The problem with the trend data nitpickers is their studied avoidance of tipping points.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I think you said: Over the eons, energy was stored in peat/coal/oil/gas and that we are releasing all that energy into the world quite rapidly. The energy from the sun has not changed, but the atmosphere has changed and so the energy absorbed the the earth has shifted. Adding released and absorbed (physics) is clear cut, but measuring it is a bit of a problem because there is some noise in the data. There are cycles, trends, that can mask the basic physics. Parsing the data requires honest scientists.

Did I get the message right this time?

 

[nwdiver]

I think you said: Over the eons, energy was stored in peat/coal/oil/gas and that we are releasing all that energy into the world quite rapidly.

No. Not about energy released... all about the CO2 and CH4. Radiative balance.

The energy from the sun has not changed, but the atmosphere has changed and so the energy absorbed the the earth has shifted.

Yes.

Adding released and absorbed (physics) is clear cut, but measuring it is a bit of a problem because there is some noise in the data. There are cycles, trends, that can mask the basic physics. Parsing the data requires honest scientists.

I don't think measurement is an issue... my point is that the trend is largely irrelevant. There could have been an unknown variable suppressing the forcing effect of CO2. That doesn't mean CO2 isn't a threat due to warming. Conversely there could be an unknown variable other than CO2 causing additional warming. Climate science is mostly dependent on the physics underlying the radiative balance of the planet.

You don't need 'honest' scientists either. Einstein was a rockstar because he disproved Newton. If there's a more accurate theory to the observations that runs counter to the current scientific paradigm there's plenty of motivation to find and publish it. That's what peer review is for.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

No. Not about energy released... all about the CO2 and CH4. Radiative balance.



Yes.



I don't think measurement is an issue... my point is that the trend is largely irrelevant. There could have been an unknown variable suppressing the forcing effect of CO2. That doesn't mean CO2 isn't a threat due to warming. Conversely there could be an unknown variable other than CO2 causing additional warming. Climate science is mostly dependent on the physics underlying the radiative balance of the planet.

You don't need 'honest' scientists either. Einstein was a rockstar because he disproved Newton. If there's a more accurate theory to the observations that runs counter to the current scientific paradigm there's plenty of motivation to find and publish it. That's what peer review is for.

Not sure I follow. I think that releasing the stored energy is important - in that it is - resulting in increasing CO2 and CH4. Are you saying energy released is not important?
I dont know what you mean Radiative Balance. Is that the reflective/insulating properties of these hydrocarbons?

My Honest Scientists plea - is a dig at those who are pseudo scientists who cherry pick data and write reports that narrate a story that benefits the author and dishonors the data. In that crowd is Climate Deniers.

I have a lot of tolerance for engineers/scientists with differing opinions. New ideas, new ways of looking at the data, unique applications of physics - make the world better. {I have 27 patents } Honest challenges are appreciated. Not Invented Here is frustrating. Cherry picked data---is an insult to professionals.

 

[nwdiver]

Not sure I follow. I think that releasing the stored energy is important - in that it is - resulting in increasing CO2 and CH4. Are you saying energy released is not important?

The energy released is a drop in the bucket compared to the change in radiative balance.

The low end of the change in radiative balance (Energy in from the sun vs Energy out via IR) is ~1.5w/m². It goes up from there depending on feedbacks like water vapor and albedo. I posted this earlier but used 1w vs 1.5w for some reason.

(1.5E-12TW/m²)(24hr/day)(365days/yr)(510Tm²) = 6,701,400 TWh/yr

All of humanity uses <200,000TWh/yr of energy (Total US electricity use is 4,000TWh/yr). ALL energy. Every drop of oil, every g of Uranium, every ounce of coal. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is dumping >30x more energy every year to the earth than the globe uses.

 

[SageBrush]

Are you saying energy released is not important?

He is saying that burning fossils is much less a problem because of heat release, but because of CO2 production that acts as a greenhouse gas.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

He is saying that burning fossils is much less a problem because of heat release, but because of CO2 production that acts as a greenhouse gas.

Thanks for explaining.
But the math does not fit my perception of reality. Lets accept that the sun is pounding the earth with energy and always has. During the Jurassic age, some of this energy was captured by plants that later became oil. So all these hydrocarbons acted like a storage battery, and the battery was charged for thousands of years. I cannot argue with the calculation of 6,701,400 TWh/yr being the current input-output balance. My argument is that there was a balance since the Jurassic age - of some number that should be in the same general order of magnitude as 6,701,400 TWh/yr. times many years. We are discharging that geologic battery very rapidly - and are producing CO2 faster than the earth can readsorb. How can you dismiss this vector of input as unimportant? I get it that the current daily balance is out of whack. But the geologic balance of storage and then quick release -- just seems like a vector that cant be ignored

 

[SageBrush]

The 6,701,400 TWh/year energy sink is a greenhouse effect.

You are absolutely right that the plant storage is being discharged into the atmosphere at a fantastic rate but the profound effect is CO2 release and accumulation rather than heat from combustion.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

The 6,701,400 TWh/year energy sink is a greenhouse effect.

You are absolutely right that the plant storage is being discharged into the atmosphere at a fantastic rate but the profound effect is CO2 release and accumulation rather than heat from combustion.

Right you are. The ancient organic material is contributing CO2, plus plastics which have not yet been burned. So we should say the organic is contributing C, and not (just) CO2.
I remember having a Chlorofluorocarbon Ozone hole scare a few years ago. Those "greenhouse" gasses were not a result of combustion.
We have disrupted the balance of nature. Our natural CO2 in breath should be reabsorbed by the green plants around us, but we keep cutting them down, and breathing more. So nature cannot process at the rate of addition.
I could do some hand-wringing and bayeing at the moon over how unfair it all is, but I'm at a loss as to what to do. If we immediately turned off all drilling/mining/burning of ancient carbon (regardless of the economic and social disruption) would the earth come back into balance -ever?
I'm thinking of being selfish- give me a heated/ and CFC air conditioned house, give me a groaning board of chemically grown food, cater to my wants of today. Let someone else deal with the consequences after I'm dead, but give me my desires now!!

I can do small things - drive EV, adjust temperature moderately, install solar on my roof. But will this correct the evils of my past decades of living as a polluter?

 

[mspohr]

Right you are. The ancient organic material is contributing CO2, plus plastics which have not yet been burned. So we should say the organic is contributing C, and not (just) CO2.
I remember having a Chlorofluorocarbon Ozone hole scare a few years ago. Those "greenhouse" gasses were not a result of combustion.
We have disrupted the balance of nature. Our natural CO2 in breath should be reabsorbed by the green plants around us, but we keep cutting them down, and breathing more. So nature cannot process at the rate of addition.
I could do some hand-wringing and bayeing at the moon over how unfair it all is, but I'm at a loss as to what to do. If we immediately turned off all drilling/mining/burning of ancient carbon (regardless of the economic and social disruption) would the earth come back into balance -ever?
I'm thinking of being selfish- give me a heated/ and CFC air conditioned house, give me a groaning board of chemically grown food, cater to my wants of today. Let someone else deal with the consequences after I'm dead, but give me my desires now!!

I can do small things - drive EV, adjust temperature moderately, install solar on my roof. But will this correct the evils of my past decades of living as a polluter?

Stop all fossil fuels use. CO2 has gone from 350 to 400 and that is increasing greenhouse effect. There are some natural processes (ocean absorption and carbonation) which can lower CO2 but they are probably not enough to have an effect in our lifetime.
First rule: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks for explaining.
But the math does not fit my perception of reality. Lets accept that the sun is pounding the earth with energy and always has. During the Jurassic age, some of this energy was captured by plants that later became oil. So all these hydrocarbons acted like a storage battery, and the battery was charged for thousands of years.

You're focusing too much on the wrong type of energy. The Earth is a ball of rock floating in a vacuum. The only way for it to get energy is from radiation. The only way for it to get rid of energy (heat) is radiation. Whatever is stored or emitted on the surface by humans or plants is a fraction of that balance. The Earth receives ~250wh/m² of energy from the sun. For temperature to be stable that would obviously mean it needs to emit 250wh/m² back into space. A radiative imbalance due to increased CO2 concentration doesn't mean the earth would heat indefinitely... warmer objects emit more energy per m² so eventually a new equilibrium will be reached.

It's the radiative exchange that maintains temperature on the earth. Plants mostly shuffle energy... they 'store' very little long term. As some plants are absorbing energy to grow (negligible) others are decaying or being eaten and releasing heat (negligible). Vegetation has more of an effect on global temperature by changing the albedo and CO2 levels than by energy stored as sugar through photosynthesis.

Visible light comes in. Infrared light goes out. If a molecule of gas preferentially absorbs IR photons and not Visible photons it's a greenhouse gas.

Lots of different was to visualize it... but the Earth receives (therefore emits as radiation) FAR more energy every year than all the energy that has ever been stored as a fossil fuel since the beginning of time... Temperature is ALL about radiative balance.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Great explanation of the balances. Thank you. I now see where I was spinning out of control.

 

[jrad6515]

I'm out today but will download some data sets - again you haven't averaged over the same area - you selected A STATION reading, probably didn't do any TOBs or other corrections, and assumed that meant you did "better research." But I'm willing to give it a shot and see for myself.

Well I give you credit for that if you actually do download the real data and analyze it yourself. Many alarmists say that they will do this but few actually do. As for the activist "Climate Impact lab" that the NYT's bogus article uses for data the pdf you cited gives this bit of revealing information:

1. Station records have been averaged over an area approximately 625 kilometers squared. Urban heat islands and other
microclimates may not be captured. 2. Our historical observations end in 2010 after which
modelled temperatures are used, which will not match specific historical observations as
they are meant to represent the average expectation of climate.

and...

Our historical data starts in 1950, which means the 21-year rolling averages
shown in the interactive start in 1960. Weather station coverage worldwide is poor before
about 1950, resulting in inaccurate estimates of the number of 90+ degree days.


Sooo...I use 120+ years of official unaltered data downloaded direct from govt servers but you would rather put your blind trust in cherry-picked data which is heavily faked - sorry - "modelled" after 2010 when there is perfectly good historical data available in the NCDC/NOAA files after 2010 and before 1960 and after 2010. There were actually more U.S. stations in reporting data before 1950 than currently so no excuse not to use older data. Could it be that the real data before 1960 and after 2010 is not favorable to the NYT's case? Hmmmm... Download the data from NOAA and see for yourself. Post your analysis when done.

 

[nwdiver]

Well I give you credit for that if you actually do download the real data and analyze it yourself. Many alarmists say that they will do this but few actually do. As for the activist "Climate Impact lab" that the NYT's bogus article uses for data the pdf you cited gives this bit of revealing information:

1. Station records have been averaged over an area approximately 625 kilometers squared. Urban heat islands and other
microclimates may not be captured. 2. Our historical observations end in 2010 after which
modelled temperatures are used, which will not match specific historical observations as
they are meant to represent the average expectation of climate.

and...

Our historical data starts in 1950, which means the 21-year rolling averages
shown in the interactive start in 1960. Weather station coverage worldwide is poor before
about 1950, resulting in inaccurate estimates of the number of 90+ degree days.


Sooo...I use 120+ years of official unaltered data downloaded direct from govt servers but you would rather put your blind trust in cherry-picked data which is heavily faked - sorry - "modelled" after 2010 when there is perfectly good historical data available in the NCDC/NOAA files after 2010 and before 1960 and after 2010. There were actually more U.S. stations in reporting data before 1950 than currently so no excuse not to use older data. Could it be that the real data before 1960 and after 2010 is not favorable to the NYT's case? Hmmmm... Download the data from NOAA and see for yourself. Post your analysis when done.

... how would increasing CO2 levels >30% NOT cause warming??? Physics is Physics... the math says ~1.5w/m² (BEFORE feedbacks)... 24/7/365; the Earth is >500Tm²; That's A LOT of energy. A LOT of energy. When you run the numbers you get roughly the amount of thermal energy increase we observe mostly in the ocean... weird coincidence.

Context... how much energy is added annually by the ~120ppm increase in CO2?

(1.5E-12TW/m²)(24hr/day)(365days/yr)(510Tm²) = 6,701,400 TWh/yr

For context all of humanity uses <200,000TWh/yr of energy (Total US electricity use is 4,000TWh/yr). ALL energy. Every drop of oil, every g of Uranium, every ounce of coal. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is dumping >20x more energy every year to the earth than the globe uses. Add in Methane, feedbacks from H2O and the change in albedo and the real number is much higher. Physics.