Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Swampgator]

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/

Thanks. I've read that Hausfather post many times. He and Curry actually have good disagreements on her site, and in the published literature.
Explaining the Discrepancies Between Hausfather et al. (2019) and Lewis&Curry (2018)

That's why I love her site. She allows both side to debate issues and is not a realclimate or Watts Up type site allowing only one side to be represented.
I will look at the homogenization algorithm when I have time, but I also want to understand what other adjustments and algorithms are/have been used.
I suspect there are lots of things going on other than simple homogenization.

But really bottom line, it does not matter too much to me. Even if the adjustments were all done well and come close to approximating actual, it would show warming of 1C since 1880. I'm willing to accept that. I have stated many time on this thread that I accept it has warmed since 1880.
I am deeply skeptical however of the motive of most in the alarmist community. It's just my nature to be skeptical of wild sounding claims. Goes back to my high school days when I wrote that paper on global cooling because I had swallowed the alarmist claims from back then.
Also from my career as a pharmacist, where I learned a bunch of things in college that turned out to be dead wrong years later. Those events have made me skeptical. Norbert and friends love to call folks like me "deniers" but I've always been unsure of what they think we are denying.

I am also skeptical of people like Bernie Sanders and Al Gore, who claim we have a climate emergency and need to act immediately. Then they run all over the globe cranking out tons of carbon into the atmosphere, but claim it's fine for them because they bought some carbon offsets.

 

[mspohr]

Rich countries could be asked to pay billions to protect biodiversity

Rich countries could be asked to pay billions to protect biodiversity

Wealthy nations could be asked to make significant financial contributions to biodiverse countries such as Brazil under proposals put forward during talks on a global agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity decline.

Paying countries with life-sustaining ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest billions of pounds a year for the services those ecosystems provide for the world was proposed during negotiations on a Paris-style UN agreement on nature in Rome last week.

 

[Swampgator]

Here is NASA's explanation of the process used to generate GISS. Notice there are several processing steps outside of the homogenization algorithm.
Everything looks to be written in python so should be easy enough to understand, but I will read through the methodology papers as well. Overall not a huge fan of Hansen because he is more activist than scientist, but he is the guy over at NASA/NOAA so it's important to understand this without any color from either side.

The steps are:

Step 0: Data are downloaded from websites maintained by the provider of these sources:
NOAA/NCEI provides these data as currently GHCN v4

Step 1: Under the control of a configuration file, various stations and periods of station records
are discarded. The list of these suspected outliers is partially a holdover from applying
the QC methods described in Hansen et al 1999 documents, or are the results of visual
inspections of recent anomaly maps and comparing the visual outliers to reports of other
sources like weather underground.

Step 2: Urban Adjustment. (Short records are discarded). Stations identified as urban, using values
obtained from satellite measurements of nighttime brightness, have their trend adjusted to
match the trend of a composite record made from nearby rural stations. At least 2/3 of the
adjusted period must have 3 rural stations contributing to the composite record. Periods and
stations that do not have sufficient support from rural stations are dropped. The composite
rural record is made from rural stations within 500 km, or 1000 km if necessary to meet the
above requirement. This step is documented in
Hansen et al 1999 (the basic scheme),
Hansen et al 2001 (allowing the break point in a two leg fit to vary in time), and
Hansen et al 2010 (the use of satellite nightlights).

Step 3: Gridding. A grid of cells is selected (8000 equal area cells covering the globe, see note
below), and for each cell a composite series is computed from station records within 1200 km
of the cell center. Each contributing record is weighted according to its distance from the
cell center, linearly decreasing to 0 at a distance of 1200 km. This step is documented in
Hansen and Lebedeff 1987.

Step 4: Sea Surface Temperatures. Gridded sea surface temperatures are read from a file prepared
by GISS using data publicly provided by other sources (currently NOAA/NCEI's ERSST v5) and
augmented with recent monthly updates. Sea surface temperature data are only used if the
location is ice free, data from locations containing sea ice are discarded. This step is
documented in Hansen et al 2010.

Step 5: Ocean merging. Ocean (Sea Surface Temperatures) and Land (Near Surface Air Temperatures)
are "merged". A cell that has both ocean and land records selects either the ocean or the
land record: the land record is discarded unless the ocean record is short or the land
record has a contributing land station within 100 km (in which case the ocean record is
discarded). This part is documented in Hansen et al 1996. In order to produce three
analyses for land-only, ocean-only, and combined land-ocean, three maps of cells are
produced and go forward to the following Zonal and Global Average steps: one containing
only land data, one containing only ocean data, and one containing mixed land and ocean
data as described above.

Zonal Averages. Each hemisphere is divided into 4 zones by splitting at the latitudes that have
sines of 0.4, 0.7, 0.9 (and 0 and 1); the latitudes of the zone boundaries are
approximately 23.6, 44.4, and 64.2 degrees. For each zone all the cells in that
zone are combined into a single record. Large regional averages (hemispheres,
tropics, northern- and southern-extratropics) are computed by combining zones
in various combinations, each zone weighted according to the zone's area.
Zonal averaging is documented in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 and Hansen et al 2006
(each of which describes an alternate scheme, the latter is what is currently
implemented, but relictual code exists for the former).

Global Average. A global series is computed by combining northern- and southern-hemisphere series,
weighted equally.

Annual series are computed from their monthly counterparts. Each month is weighted equally.

 

[ohmman]

Here is NASA's explanation of the process used to generate GISS. Notice there are several processing steps outside of the homogenization algorithm.
Everything looks to be written in python so should be easy enough to understand, but I will read through the methodology papers as well. Overall not a huge fan of Hansen because he is more activist than scientist, but he is the guy over at NASA/NOAA so it's important to understand this without any color from either side.

The steps are:

Step 0: Data are downloaded from websites maintained by the provider of these sources:
NOAA/NCEI provides these data as currently GHCN v4

Step 1: Under the control of a configuration file, various stations and periods of station records
are discarded. The list of these suspected outliers is partially a holdover from applying
the QC methods described in Hansen et al 1999 documents, or are the results of visual
inspections of recent anomaly maps and comparing the visual outliers to reports of other
sources like weather underground.

Step 2: Urban Adjustment. (Short records are discarded). Stations identified as urban, using values
obtained from satellite measurements of nighttime brightness, have their trend adjusted to
match the trend of a composite record made from nearby rural stations. At least 2/3 of the
adjusted period must have 3 rural stations contributing to the composite record. Periods and
stations that do not have sufficient support from rural stations are dropped. The composite
rural record is made from rural stations within 500 km, or 1000 km if necessary to meet the
above requirement. This step is documented in
Hansen et al 1999 (the basic scheme),
Hansen et al 2001 (allowing the break point in a two leg fit to vary in time), and
Hansen et al 2010 (the use of satellite nightlights).

Step 3: Gridding. A grid of cells is selected (8000 equal area cells covering the globe, see note
below), and for each cell a composite series is computed from station records within 1200 km
of the cell center. Each contributing record is weighted according to its distance from the
cell center, linearly decreasing to 0 at a distance of 1200 km. This step is documented in
Hansen and Lebedeff 1987.

Step 4: Sea Surface Temperatures. Gridded sea surface temperatures are read from a file prepared
by GISS using data publicly provided by other sources (currently NOAA/NCEI's ERSST v5) and
augmented with recent monthly updates. Sea surface temperature data are only used if the
location is ice free, data from locations containing sea ice are discarded. This step is
documented in Hansen et al 2010.

Step 5: Ocean merging. Ocean (Sea Surface Temperatures) and Land (Near Surface Air Temperatures)
are "merged". A cell that has both ocean and land records selects either the ocean or the
land record: the land record is discarded unless the ocean record is short or the land
record has a contributing land station within 100 km (in which case the ocean record is
discarded). This part is documented in Hansen et al 1996. In order to produce three
analyses for land-only, ocean-only, and combined land-ocean, three maps of cells are
produced and go forward to the following Zonal and Global Average steps: one containing
only land data, one containing only ocean data, and one containing mixed land and ocean
data as described above.

Zonal Averages. Each hemisphere is divided into 4 zones by splitting at the latitudes that have
sines of 0.4, 0.7, 0.9 (and 0 and 1); the latitudes of the zone boundaries are
approximately 23.6, 44.4, and 64.2 degrees. For each zone all the cells in that
zone are combined into a single record. Large regional averages (hemispheres,
tropics, northern- and southern-extratropics) are computed by combining zones
in various combinations, each zone weighted according to the zone's area.
Zonal averaging is documented in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 and Hansen et al 2006
(each of which describes an alternate scheme, the latter is what is currently
implemented, but relictual code exists for the former).

Global Average. A global series is computed by combining northern- and southern-hemisphere series,
weighted equally.

Annual series are computed from their monthly counterparts. Each month is weighted equally.

Was the underlining your doing? Is it supposed to indicate some confusion on your part, or intended to sow doubt for those who don't understand the methodology?

Also note that this is the GISS data, as you mention, and not US land temperature adjustment, which can be modeled very closely to the final by simply using homogenization. Either way, I'm glad you're trucking along. Check back in after you've completed a run.

One thing that repeatedly concerns me about your posts is that you phrase things as "your side" or "both sides." Science doesn't have two sides. It's a spectrum of understanding. As soon as you "other" anything, it becomes oppositional instead of cooperative. And that's how you end up with the word that you hate - deniers. I'd recommend viewing science as what it is - a range of understanding and a range of conclusions.

Regarding your previous post, we will address that once you reproduce the work. I see you're trying to walk back claims you've made in this thread, but you know I won't allow that to go unchecked. You'll have to admit you were wrong outright.

 

[Swampgator]

Was the underlining your doing? Is it supposed to indicate some confusion on your part, or intended to sow doubt for those who don't understand the methodology?

Also note that this is the GISS data, as you mention, and not US land temperature adjustment, which can be modeled very closely to the final by simply using homogenization. Either way, I'm glad you're trucking along. Check back in after you've completed a run.

One thing that repeatedly concerns me about your posts is that you phrase things as "your side" or "both sides." Science doesn't have two sides. It's a spectrum of understanding. As soon as you "other" anything, it becomes oppositional instead of cooperative. And that's how you end up with the word that you hate - deniers. I'd recommend viewing science as what it is - a range of understanding and a range of conclusions.

Regarding your previous post, we will address that once you reproduce the work. I see you're trying to walk back claims you've made in this thread, but you know I won't allow that to go unchecked. You'll have to admit you were wrong outright.

That is not the case at all.

There are in fact 2 sides to this debate, using the tactic "it's science" or "it's physics" is just an attempt to stifle discussion. There are on one side those who claim that humans are 100% responsible for the warming that has occured since 1880 and that we must reverse course immediately or risk certain death and destruction. On the other side are those skeptical of that view. There are of course variations along the way. You can say one side is science based and the other is not, but that is simply not the case and you know it. Many climate scientists are on the "other side" You already know who they are. They are well published in their fields of study. Many chair or have chaired University departments. Anyone who calls them "deniers" is not a serious person.

Also as I have pointed out to you via DM, what I find interesting about you is that you give a pass to any and all alarmist claims on this thread, but will spend considerable time debating skeptics on every last point.
If I was on "your side" and posted that a given hurricane for example was evidence of "climate change", not a peep would be heard from the gentleman.

I'm not interested in doing "runs" of data algorithm outputs. I am interested in the overall process that they are using to generate the final output/product.
I would like to learn more about that.

Yes, the underlines were mine, and are simply things I saw that piqued my interest and want to better understand.

 

[ohmman]

There are in fact 2 sides to this debate, using the tactic "it's science" or "it's physics" is just an attempt to stifle discussion. There are on one side those who claim that humans are 100% responsible for the warming that has occured since 1880 and that we must reverse course immediately or risk certain death and destruction.

You're wrong again.

Also as I have pointed out to you via DM, what I find interesting about you is that you give a pass to any and all alarmist claims on this thread, but will spend considerable time debating skeptics on every last point.

And as I've responded to you in PM, some people are more demonstrably wrong than others, and have an off-putting, unwavering confidence in these personally derived, demonstrably wrong conclusions. Perhaps it's just low hanging fruit, or perhaps it's just a distaste for arguments without humility.

By the way, that argument reads as "if they can be wrong, why can't I?"

 

[Norbert]

But really bottom line, it does not matter too much to me. Even if the adjustments were all done well and come close to approximating actual, it would show warming of 1C since 1880. I'm willing to accept that. I have stated many time on this thread that I accept it has warmed since 1880.

It is also about 1C since 1970. That's one of the things that alarm me, the development since 1970.

I am deeply skeptical however of the motive of most in the alarmist community. It's just my nature to be skeptical of wild sounding claims. Goes back to my high school days when I wrote that paper on global cooling because I had swallowed the alarmist claims from back then.
Also from my career as a pharmacist, where I learned a bunch of things in college that turned out to be dead wrong years later. Those events have made me skeptical.

Nothing wrong with being sceptical, but you should be even more sceptical of the sceptics. Especially given the special interests at play, in case you haven't noticed them yet. There is a lot of double-faced behavior. Aside from plain corruption, many think it is their calling to defend the free market society against socialist indoctrination, by any means possible.

Norbert and friends love to call folks like me "deniers" but I've always been unsure of what they think we are denying.

I suggested that you are following in the footsteps of deniers by dismissing evidence (for example) simply because the article was posted on a website you don't like. They may be not friendly towards deniers, but that has reasons even if you don't accept them (yet). They are well regarded, experienced scientists as are many scientists whose articles are posted there.

I am also skeptical of people like Bernie Sanders and Al Gore, who claim we have a climate emergency and need to act immediately. Then they run all over the globe cranking out tons of carbon into the atmosphere, but claim it's fine for them because they bought some carbon offsets.

And I am sceptical of people who use ad hominems in such a way. If you think you can find the truth by making character evaluations in that way, I'm afraid you won't find it.

 

[JRP3]

Have we adopted a British spelling of "skeptic"?

 

[Norbert]

Have we adopted a British spelling of "skeptic"?

I wasn't aware of the difference. Don't know where that came from.

EDIT: Maybe school? I learned english before I learned american.

 

[Norbert]

There are in fact 2 sides to this debate, using the tactic "it's science" or "it's physics" is just an attempt to stifle discussion. There are on one side those who claim that humans are 100% responsible for the warming that has occured since 1880 and that we must reverse course immediately or risk certain death and destruction. On the other side are those skeptical of that view. There are of course variations along the way. You can say one side is science based and the other is not, but that is simply not the case and you know it. Many climate scientists are on the "other side" You already know who they are. They are well published in their fields of study. Many chair or have chaired University departments. Anyone who calls them "deniers" is not a serious person.

I'm going to "explain" a few things that don't really need explaining.

Disagreeing with mainstream climate science is not necessarily the same thing as "denying" it. The term "denier" refers to denying the evidence, instead of having sufficient legitimate scientific arguments. However in practice, one could say they are often the same since the scientific evidence is so overwhelming. However if one wanted to, one could perhaps differentiate between "hard deniers" and "soft deniers". The soft deniers would be those who have scientific background for some objection or alternative explanation, but then go to the public and present their findings as if they meant that climate science is put in doubt on a larger level. They spend a significant amount of effort to pretend that there are now "2 sides to the debate" in the sense that science would be undecided and both sides need to be heard before deciding on a course of action. They are not necessarily denying the evidence as such, but the significance of the evidence as overwhelmingly speaking against their point of view. Their ideas might warrant further scientific research, but they are not as politically relevant as they try to be. Their denial lies in the attempt to stop or postpone political action without valid scientific basis, against overwhelming scientific evidence. In some cases, there may be some theoretical possibility that they are right and climate science at large is wrong, but that is besides the point. The danger is still a danger, and the denial of that danger still a denial. IMHO.

 

[eevee-fan]

Synthetic and fossil fuel showdown is fast approaching

"According to a 2017 EPA report, emissions from transportation alone accounted for 29 percent of total CO2 emissions in the US, with a carbon intensity of nearly 101.5 grams of CO2 per megajoule, according to the company Carbon Engineering.

Synthetic gas created with DAC, on the other hand, has a carbon intensity of roughly 10 grams per megajoule -- a level of magnitude decrease. So, if DAC synthetic gas was to really be embraced and adopted as a standard by the transportation industry, the result could be huge."

So... electricity brought you costs 101.5 g of CO2 per megajoule. Producing Syngas costs 10 grams but let's ignore the addition CO2 resulting from transporting that Syngas to you... what excellent analysis, they should submit this for peer review. haha


I still prefer EV for the zero emission in the city (exhaust and asbestos dust)...

 

[golfcart]

And I am sceptical of people who use ad hominems in such a way. If you think you can find the truth by making character evaluations in that way, I'm afraid you won't find it.

I wouldn't consider what they said in that particular part an ad hominem... I think it is saying that actions speak louder than words and if they truly believe that there is a climate emergency then why don't their actions reflect that sense of urgency? No doubt, in person interaction helps with collaboration and the development of relationships but with cloud computing, document sharing, skype, facetime, and numerous platforms like webex and gotomeeting... most things can be done remotely at this point. Why do actors, politicians, and "influencers" get to lecture average people about their lifestyle while having the largest carbon footprints of nearly anyone in the history of the planet?

As far as the rest of this argument is concerned, I think people just need to trust the scientists. Scientists love nothing more than proving other scientists wrong, if there was strong evidence against AGW it would be front and center and being debated viciously. There are some uncertainties as to the sensitivity of certain parameters and how clouds will impact things but the basic premise is universally agreed upon at this point within the scientific community. This debate should be about things like reduction vs mitigation vs adaptation and what policies can best accomplish whatever goals we decide on based on our best consensus estimates of future change... not whether or not it is happening. Conservative (market based) ideas could actually contribute a lot to the discussion IMO if their party would just embrace something pretty mainstream like the IPCC consensus and go from there.

Unfortunately this issue has become extremely political and I don't know what you do now that it is political because politics makes people irrational and tribal. The republican party has chosen to mostly ignore the issue and many journalists and leaders on the right have chosen to frame AGW has a hoax or a conspiracy. While the democrats have been much better (IMO) in this particular issue, an increasingly activist left-leaning media has promoted so much hyperbole that nobody knows what to believe and some leftist politicians have seized upon the climate issue as a Trojan horse to implement their social agendas which makes it even less likely that the conservatives will come around. I am personally not very optimistic and most of the area where I live is less than 10ft above sea level.

 

[JRP3]

Why do actors, politicians, and "influencers" get to lecture average people about their lifestyle while having the largest carbon footprints of nearly anyone in the history of the planet?

Because people will listen to famous people, especially in person. Simple fact of human nature. If they actually influence a large group of people to make real and lasting changes the net result is beneficial. Some people complain about Elon's carbon foot print as well. Do you?

 

[SageBrush]

The term "denier" refers to denying the evidence

I reserve the insult for those idiots who ignore the universally accepted science that CO2 is a GHG which leads to radiative forcing. I place them in the same camp as flat Earthers

 

[golfcart]

Because people will listen to famous people, especially in person. Simple fact of human nature. If they actually influence a large group of people to make real and lasting changes the net result is beneficial. Some people complain about Elon's carbon foot print as well. Do you?

Some do and some don't. I'd have to see evidence that they are a net benefit. Certainly Tesla is a net benefit given the EV and renewable energy focus but I'm sure there are aspects of Elon's life where he could cut back significantly without hurting his influence. I doubt anyone in Hollywood is a net benefit, their relevance is tied to them flying all over the world doing movies and appearances and I'm not convinced anyone really cares what they think. Politicians may or may not be as most of them are just preaching to the choir anyways. Certainly their policies can be hugely beneficial but I'm not convinced of the rest.

As far as the Elon question goes I think it's a bit of a deflection... I'm not sitting around criticizing anyone's carbon footprint to begin with, I was simply defending @Swampgator from the accusation that this sort of criticism is necessarily ad hominem. It can be ad hominem, it can also be saying that actions speak louder than words and these famous folks actions sure don't look like they think the "world is going to end".

 

[JRP3]

I'm sure there are aspects of Elon's life where he could cut back significantly without hurting his influence.

I'm sure everyone could do the same, including you. Unless you're living in a grass hut hunting and gathering you could cut back. Who gets to determine what is enough?

 

[SageBrush]

it can also be saying that actions speak louder than words

Which is saying judge the messenger rather than the message. That is an ad-hominem fallacy

 

[golfcart]

I'm sure everyone could do the same, including you. Unless you're living in a grass hut hunting and gathering you could cut back. Who gets to determine what is enough?

That is exactly my point. Absolutely I could cut back... so could you and everyone else in the developed world. I drive a 500hp car with dual motors and 20" performance tires. I would never act smug about what I drive for that reason alone.

 

[golfcart]

Which is saying judge the messenger rather than the message. That is an ad-hominem fallacy

Not really, because he isn't attacking the messenger in order to disprove the science of AGW or deflect from the climate scienctists claims about AGW... he is observing that the messenger (who is not a scientist but instead a politician, actor, or other famous person) says you should trust them about how important this issue is, yet the messenger does not act in a way that is consistent with their message, therefore he is suspicious of trusting that messenger. Those are two completely different things. This is 99% a trust issue with the general public because 99% of the general public can't discuss the science AGW intelligently.

 

[SageBrush]

Let's say

the messenger

is famous and fat, and warns about the risks of obesity.

In your world that person is an untrustworthy source of information ?