Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Norbert]

You're kidding right? The site run my Schmidt and Mann? The two biggest and most invested alarmists. Well, Schmidt is more reasonable then Mann. Mann is a climate bully, full stop.

Thanks for the GISS link though. I wanted to understand their methodology. In general though I'm not a huge fan of GISS data as it has been heavily adjusted from the raw data. (Queue Ohmman)

Whenever I was more intensely reading the site, it appeared to be run somewhat-mostly by Schmidt, who indeed struck me as reasonable. And by a larger variety of other NASA scientists and contributing scientists, mostly actual climate scientists, as the name says. I think the facts themselves are alarming, so the scientists need to convey this when speaking to the public, as there is nobody better qualified to determine if there is a danger.

And the right thing to do in case of danger is to sound an alarm.

The so-called "raw data" claims already existed many years ago (and others for example by blogger Anthony Watts), but I found them to be misguided and/or exagerrated at the larger scale, for example the data does need to be correctly interpreted. Sceptics produce all kind of graphs, for example using limited datasets or such. Their creativity is surprising. Meanwhile, temps are rising. I think the graphs by NASA are the best available, and others are similar. These graphs and the underlying datasets receive a huge amount of critical examination from all over the world. There is extensive research by a large number of scientists behind them.

However I currently don't want to spend the time to dig into that again. I don't see a need to do so. The international scientific consensus of more than 90% doesn't show any signs of crumbling. The other less than 10% still try to make their objections sound very scientific, producing all kinds of graphs, but not convincing enough for me to get very interested anymore. If anything, there is a sense that things are worse than they seemed to be.

 

[Norbert]

P.S.: From 2017:

The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun

A denier favorite is to suggest that NASA deliberately adjusts temperatures upward to exaggerate global warming. An absurd conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by the basic fact that the net effect of the data adjustments is to reduce global warming. The next figure shows this. If climate scientists were trying to exaggerate global warming they’d show you the unadjusted raw data!

Fig. 3

The NASA data of global temperature compared to the uncorrected raw data (light blue) and two global temperature data sets from other institutes. (Source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies )

 

[Swampgator]

Ad hominem (Mann), argument from incredulity. Describe why the adjustment methodology is wrong. Reproduce a single paper. Seriously. A single paper. Because otherwise it’s just an opinion.

Ah, Ohmman right on queue.

It's fact that the adjustments always make earlier years cooler and latter years warmer. Does that not seem at least curious to you?
The raw data in this case is taken from several different data sets. The thermometers have been moved around over the years due to various non conspiratorial reasons. Almost every thermometer has been moved at least once, many 3 or more times. Wouldn't you expect adjustments then to be more evenly distributed?

The two charts that flip back and forth I posted earlier are also NOT raw vs adjusted data. They are 1999 GISS adjusted data vs 2012 GISS adjusted data.

Shouldn't that at least make you curious as to why/how they changed their adjustment methodology?

Here is how it's done now, according to NASA/GISS:
Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with documented and undocumented instances of artificial changes.

Hummmm Automated systems require human coders to write the algorithms, correct?

 

[Swampgator]

P.S.: From 2017:

The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun


View attachment 516222

P.S.: From 2017:

The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun


View attachment 516222

Again you use realclimate as your source? Schmidt and Mann write the papers and make the adjustments, and then get to be their own referees on that blog site. You would not allow Donald Trump to fact check himself, would you?

 

[ohmman]

Ah, Ohmman right on queue.

It's fact that the adjustments always make earlier years cooler and latter years warmer. Does that not seem at least curious to you?
The raw data in this case is taken from several different data sets. The thermometers have been moved around over the years due to various non conspiratorial reasons. Almost every thermometer has been moved at least once, many 3 or more times. Wouldn't you expect adjustments then to be more evenly distributed?

The two charts that flip back and forth I posted earlier are also NOT raw vs adjusted data. They are 1999 GISS adjusted data vs 2012 GISS adjusted data.

Shouldn't that at least make you curious as to why/how they changed their adjustment methodology?

Here is how it's done now, according to NASA/GISS:
Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with documented and undocumented instances of artificial changes.

Hummmm Automated systems require human coders to write the algorithms, correct?

Please respond with logic - this is precisely the argument from incredulity. Which is more clearly defined as “I don’t understand so it can’t be real.” We get that you don’t understand it, but that’s absolutely no argument against it.

Have you reproduced a paper yet? Download the algorithm. Until then, refrain from bizarre irrational postulations.

 

[ladysbff]

Climate lawsuits are breaking new legal ground to protect the planet

Instead, Gerrard and Carlson anticipate that US activists and municipalities will pivot from targeting governments to going after the producers of emissions themselves — a strategy seen as more pragmatic because it seeks to impose cash penalties, which can, in some cases, be used for climate-mitigation efforts.

At least a dozen cases in the United States are now taking this tack. In County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., several Californian cities and counties are seeking funds from major fossil-fuel corporations to fund infrastructure for sea-level-rise adaptation. Oral arguments in the latest appeal were heard on 5 February, but a ruling has yet to be handed down. And several other individuals and localities, including the state of Massachusetts, are currently suing ExxonMobil and other companies for allegedly deceiving consumers about the risks of fossil-fuel use.

 

[cpa]

Ah, Ohmman right on queue.

Actually, it is right on cue.

A queue is a line or a long strand of braided hair. The verb usage is to form a line or to braid hair.

A cue is a prompt to recite lines or to start something up.

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled contretemps.

 

[Norbert]

Again you use realclimate as your source? Schmidt and Mann write the papers and make the adjustments, and then get to be their own referees on that blog site. You would not allow Donald Trump to fact check himself, would you?

No, that was german Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, professor for "Physics of the Oceans", who just debunked your conspiracy theory.

Your next lie is to pretend that this is two guys, whereas in fact it is hundreds if not thousands of scientists of all levels and nationalities all over the world.

You don't have the the smallest piece of credibiility left on this matter.

 

[eevee-fan]

 

[Norbert]

From 2012:
Climate-change denier changes his mind

A former climate change skeptic, Prof. Richard Muller (physics), writes:

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

[mspohr]

Educating Girls is More Effective in the Climate Emergency than Many Green Technologies - Resilience

However research shows that for each intake of students, educating girls has multiple benefits that go far beyond the individual and any particular society. It can also result in rapid and transformative change that affects the planet itself, and do so better than, for example, any electric car.

This is because educating girls has an impact beyond the individual, cascading into her family and her community. Almost universally, research since the 1980s shows that women with higher levels of good quality education marry later and have fewer and healthier children, live longer and enjoy greater economic prosperity

 

[Swampgator]

Please respond with logic - this is precisely the argument from incredulity. Which is more clearly defined as “I don’t understand so it can’t be real.” We get that you don’t understand it, but that’s absolutely no argument against it.

Have you reproduced a paper yet? Download the algorithm. Until then, refrain from bizarre irrational postulations.

Mann won't share his algorithms. Neither will Schmidt. SO, I'm gonna have to take a pass on that, thanks.
And really what your rather nicely worded post says is: "you are dumb and can't understand things"

You I would presume accept the GISS data. I guess because of appeal to authority, because you have not looked at the data correction algorithms either.

Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

 

[Swampgator]

P.S.: From 2017:

The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun


View attachment 516222

#1. Again, talking points taken from realclimate. Yawn.
#2. Whenever someone opens a paragraph with: "A denier favorite" you can know this is not the language of science, but instead of propaganda.

 

[mspohr]

I think we have found the problem
China pollution clears amid coronavirus slowdown

Satellite images have shown a dramatic decline in pollution levels over China, which is "at least partly" due to an economic slowdown prompted by the coronavirus, US space agency Nasa says.

 

[ohmman]

Mann won't share his algorithms. Neither will Schmidt. SO, I'm gonna have to take a pass on that, thanks.
And really what your rather nicely worded post says is: "you are dumb and can't understand things"

You I would presume accept the GISS data. I guess because of appeal to authority, because you have not looked at the data correction algorithms either.

Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

Incorrect across the board.

Here's the algorithm software, provided by NOAA: Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment Software (USHCN) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Every published paper includes the data set adjustment methodology.

And my post didn't say you're dumb. It said your argument is based on the fact that if you don't understand the methodology, it must be incorrect. It's literally the argument you've made in a number of posts in this thread and elsewhere on this forum, and it's not an argument at all.

My claim is not an appeal to authority. As you and I have discussed before on this very thread, I have used this algorithm in my work in the financial industry, and I know it works. So if by "authority" you mean me.. well, that'll work.

Now that you've got the link, you can get to work. Until then, I'll assume your continued posts are trolling and treat them as such. If you need a hand with the code, PM me.

 

[Norbert]

#1. Again, talking points taken from realclimate. Yawn.
#2. Whenever someone opens a paragraph with: "A denier favorite" you can know this is not the language of science, but instead of propaganda.

Wrong on both points.
#1 Not a talking point, but evidence.
#2 Unfortunately for you, deniers don't get scientific treatment. It's a term for those who fail to recognize #1.

 

[Swampgator]

Incorrect across the board.

Here's the algorithm software, provided by NOAA: Pairwise Homogeneity Adjustment Software (USHCN) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Every published paper includes the data set adjustment methodology.

And my post didn't say you're dumb. It said your argument is based on the fact that if you don't understand the methodology, it must be incorrect. It's literally the argument you've made in a number of posts in this thread and elsewhere on this forum, and it's not an argument at all.

My claim is not an appeal to authority. As you and I have discussed before on this very thread, I have used this algorithm in my work in the financial industry, and I know it works. So if by "authority" you mean me.. well, that'll work.

Now that you've got the link, you can get to work. Until then, I'll assume your continued posts are trolling and treat them as such. If you need a hand with the code, PM me.

That is just the homogenization algorithm. Don't they aldo have data collection algorithms which take the raw data and report it into NOAA/NCEI? I will look at this homogenization algorithm, but my understanding is that is not the area of controversy. Am I misunderstanding that?

 

[eevee-fan]

Climate Change Could Disrupt The Coffee Industry | CleanTechnica

 

[ohmman]

That is just the homogenization algorithm. Don't they aldo have data collection algorithms which take the raw data and report it into NOAA/NCEI? I will look at this homogenization algorithm, but my understanding is that is not the area of controversy. Am I misunderstanding that?

You're misunderstanding. The algorithm can be used on its own to do pairwise adjustments and results in very similar adjustments to TOBS+UHI adjustments. It can also be used in concert with other algorithms, but the results are similar either way - they confirm warming.

This Curry link, which I've provided before, discusses some of the background, and why the majority of complaints about adjustments are unfounded.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

 

[Norbert]

You're misunderstanding. The algorithm can be used on its own to do pairwise adjustments and results in very similar adjustments to TOBS+UHI adjustments. It can also be used in concert with other algorithms, but the results are similar either way - they confirm warming.

This Curry link, which I've provided before, discusses some of the background, and why the majority of complaints about adjustments are unfounded.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data

A text from 2014, BTW.

As far as I can tell from the first figure, for NCDC it (still) shows an opposite adjustment as the link from Stefan Rahmstorf for NOAA/NASA/UKMO.

EDIT: I don't know exactly what "global" data this article shows, but both adjusted and raw data differ quite a bit for early times. The NASA graphs which I usually post show less global warming when comparing modern time data to early time data. In the Stefan Rahmstorf article, the "raw data" used there shows more global warming than the adjusted data there, but not as much as either data in this article.

It seems that the data I am usually posting, from NASA, shows the least global warming.