// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Global Climate change 2019

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    The sudden 'lookie, there was no hiatus' thing - which seems to be where Shuny's article comes from but won't state it clearly enough.
    Ok, data is from here:
    Screen Shot 2019-08-26 at 9.49.46 AM.jpg
    If you didn't look at the years below, could you spot the hiatus?

    If your answer is no, then your eyeballs are as good as the statistics, which indicate there was no statistically significant slowdown in warming in the early 2000s.

    But, if you know the dates, you can see that there was a relatively slow period in the early 2000s, and similar periods around 1980 and 1990. And it's worth looking at these in more detail, because they can tell us something about what drives short-term variability in climate. In the case of the early 2000s, it was clearly driven by an extended run of La Niñas.

    All that said, the people who were prone to doubt climate change made a big deal about the "hiatus" at the time, because it looked like it justified their beliefs. And some scientists tried to respond to that by figuring out why there was a period of slower warming. And other said "it's clearly La Niña, don't waste your time on this". So, it was a bit controversial at the time, including within the scientific community. Bit ironic considering it's largely been forgotten since.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      Ok, data is from here:
      [ATTACH=CONFIG]39339[/ATTACH]
      If you didn't look at the years below, could you spot the hiatus?

      If your answer is no, then your eyeballs are as good as the statistics, which indicate there was no statistically significant slowdown in warming in the early 2000s.

      But, if you know the dates, you can see that there was a relatively slow period in the early 2000s, and similar periods around 1980 and 1990. And it's worth looking at these in more detail, because they can tell us something about what drives short-term variability in climate. In the case of the early 2000s, it was clearly driven by an extended run of La Niñas.

      All that said, the people who were prone to doubt climate change made a big deal about the "hiatus" at the time, because it looked like it justified their beliefs. And some scientists tried to respond to that by figuring out why there was a period of slower warming. And other said "it's clearly La Niña, don't waste your time on this". So, it was a bit controversial at the time, including within the scientific community. Bit ironic considering it's largely been forgotten since.
      Yep - why do you assume I can't read a simple chart? I grant it takes a hard look - but that's why you used a chart that contains decades we aren't discussing.

      How I would interpret it - that I would say is a slower progression (based on the chart you presented - which is disingenuous - if you're really looking for small variants, you don't use a chart too broad to show them). I wasn't born yesterday and I do know better than look at a long term chart when I want to know what happened in a particular period. From the chart presented, just glancing since this isn't a good way to do this, it would seem that there have been multiple changes in the rate of progression.

      But this wasn't how the pause was treated just a few years ago.

      Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC Report

      So, miraculously a problem scientists weren't sure about simply never existed - meaning they got it wrong for at least ten years. And we should trust that the 'new' adjustment fixes everything and all is right with the world and...

      Seriously, this looks like hand waving. It's this kind of thing that makes me increasingly skeptical.

      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Comment


      • #18
        He who controls the data controls the narrative.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Yep - why do you assume I can't read a simple chart? I grant it takes a hard look - but that's why you used a chart that contains decades we aren't discussing..
          Considering the chart goes up to 2020, i'm not sure what decades you think i'm skipping. Maybe you could explain that one.

          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          I wasn't born yesterday and I do know better than look at a long term chart when I want to know what happened in a particular period. From the chart presented, just glancing since this isn't a good way to do this, it would seem that there have been multiple changes in the rate of progression.
          That's why i included a link back to the original source, so you could look in more detail if you wanted. If you'd rather have the underlying data, it's here:
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

          I'm not trying to pull one over on you, and i resent the implication that i am.

          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          But this wasn't how the pause was treated just a few years ago.

          Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC Report

          So, miraculously a problem scientists weren't sure about simply never existed - meaning they got it wrong for at least ten years. And we should trust that the 'new' adjustment fixes everything and all is right with the world and...
          I wasn't born yesterday, which is why i read the link you are sending me to, which clearly says:
          "Many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998."
          Not scientists, governments.

          As for the scientists, it's exactly as i said:
          "many arguing that the Earth has continued to warm but that the heat has gone into oceans." That's via the repeated La Niña, which i mentioned.

          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Seriously, this looks like hand waving. It's this kind of thing that makes me increasingly skeptical.
          But not skeptical enough to read your own link carefully?
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            He who controls the data controls the narrative.
            Who do you think controls this data, and how do they exert their control?
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              Who do you think controls this data, and how do they exert their control?
              Nasa. By "adjusting" the past data, er I mean "correcting" it.

              You don't have to have a lot of people in a worldwide conspiracy when the zeitgeist of society already primed to believe in "global warming" because of 40 years of the media and schools teaching it - you just need to keep tweaking the central data sources to keep up the appearance. Since it is what everyone already believes, and it is politically and financially advantageous for them, the rest of the sheep will just follow along.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Nasa. By "adjusting" the past data, er I mean "correcting" it.

                You don't have to have a lot of people in a worldwide conspiracy when the zeitgeist of society already primed to believe in "global warming" because of 40 years of the media and schools teaching it - you just need to keep tweaking the central data sources to keep up the appearance. Since it is what everyone already believes, and it is politically and financially advantageous for them, the rest of the sheep will just follow along.
                Well, since you don't trust NASA, it's a good thing that NOAA, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth (Koch funded), and others have data too, and don't use NASA's corrections.

                And what in the world makes you think climate change is politically advantageous to NASA during the Bush 2 and Trump administrations?

                And, while you're at it, since you don't trust corrections, can you explain why any of the ones done are scientifically invalid?
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Well, since you don't trust NASA, it's a good thing that NOAA, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth (Koch funded), and others have data too, and don't use NASA's corrections.

                  And what in the world makes you think climate change is politically advantageous to NASA during the Bush 2 and Trump administrations?

                  And, while you're at it, since you don't trust corrections, can you explain why any of the ones done are scientifically invalid?
                  You are harshing my mellow.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    You are harshing my mellow.
                    Didn't mean to sound aggressive, but i'm interested in how people reach the beliefs they maintain regarding science. You're suggesting a conspiracy to manipulate data by NASA, which is something straight out of the flat earth playbook. I'm wondering how that came about, so i'm trying to understand how you think about all the sub-issues that you have to navigate around in order to arrive at that belief.

                    The whole thing with climate change fascinates me in general. We know the greenhouse effect exists - Venus wouldn't be Venus without it. But it seems like people somehow believe Earth is excepted from that bit of physics. It mystifies me, and so i'm interested in trying to understand it better.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Didn't mean to sound aggressive, but i'm interested in how people reach the beliefs they maintain regarding science. You're suggesting a conspiracy to manipulate data by NASA, which is something straight out of the flat earth playbook. I'm wondering how that came about, so i'm trying to understand how you think about all the sub-issues that you have to navigate around in order to arrive at that belief.

                      The whole thing with climate change fascinates me in general. We know the greenhouse effect exists - Venus wouldn't be Venus without it. But it seems like people somehow believe Earth is excepted from that bit of physics. It mystifies me, and so i'm interested in trying to understand it better.
                      I was kidding about the "conspiracy" but I think there is a lot of what I would call "confirmation bias" going on in the whole climate change camp. And I think it does affect the data. An example would be NASA climatologists "knowing" the earth is warming and that there "wasn't a pause" so let's "find out where we went wrong" and coming to the conclusion that the "needed to adjust the data" to bring it in line with what they know it should read. Others take that data and run with it. Now the old unadjusted data isn't even there any more to check from what I have read (that may have been a someone on tweb quoting a conspiracy site though). Thus my comment that he who controls the data controls the narrative. I don't believe there is a conscious conspiracy of people who "know it is fake" or anything like that.

                      And I do believe there is climate change going on, just not to the extent the scientists and media are making it out to be, nor as dire. Seems to me every "prediction" they have made over the last few decades have been way off base. Time to readjust the data again.

                      And I think the climate models are a joke. They can easily input their own biases into the models and come up with all sorts of wild predictions.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        An interesting article regarding NOAA and their data:


                        Yes, NOAA must adjust data — but its climate record really is quite wrong
                        By S. Fred Singer

                        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the official U.S. government custodian of information on weather and climate. NOAA monitors both, and keeps records of both, and also tries to predict future changes. Climate is generally defined as a time average of weather, extending over at least a few weeks.

                        NOAA does a reasonable job on the weather, but has been subject to much criticism for its handling of climate and is often accused of “cooking the data” for ideological reasons, related to energy policy.

                        Once it is realized that CO2 has only minor effects, if any, on climate change, some of the criticism will disappear.



                        It is important for the public to gain some perspective on such changes before indulging in wild accusations. Equally important, NOAA must use more transparency and not only announce data adjustments, but explain them so that reasonable people of goodwill will understand.

                        Much of the current criticism is clearly unfair. NOAA must adjust climate data for many reasons.

                        When a weather station is moved, its prior values have to be adjusted and this extends at times to neighboring stations.

                        Another non-ideological reason for adjusting data is the poor location of some of the stations. Meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented such examples; NOAA tries to keep track of them.

                        Some of the changes occur naturally. For example, trees grow up or are cut down, and the wind pattern changes at the weather station thermometer. Or, an airport opens up nearby and the traffic pattern changes in the vicinity.

                        On the other hand, some of the criticism is justified. I cite two instances:

                        First, there has been no change reported in surface temperatures since about the year 2000, indicating no current warming. This so-called “pause” (or hiatus) has generated much controversy. It suggests that CO2 has little influence on the planet’s climate change, and it affects energy policy in a profound way.

                        In June 2015, just weeks before the Paris Conference and before the U.S. presidential election, NOAA produced a “scientific paper” that suggested the so-called temperature “pause” was an illusion. The National Climate Data Center (NCDC), part of NOAA, published a paper in Science magazine that attempted to explain away the existence of the temperature “pause.”

                        Not many people really believed that NCDC’s work was correct. But, the editor of Science went to great lengths to promote the paper, issuing a press release and giving the NCDC paper special handling.

                        All this is history. The Paris Climate Accord negotiated in December 2015 and signed in April 2016 had no teeth and may be considered a failure. Now the United States under President Trump has officially withdrawn from the Paris Accord.

                        Science magazine had “egg on its face.” Its editor went on to another prestigious position, as president of the National Academy of Sciences. While the NCDC paper could be considered “a tempest in the teapot,” it had no lasting effect. Any criticism of NOAA was automatically transferred to criticism of President Trump.

                        More serious, perhaps, is the continued failure of NOAA to recognize that its climate record is really quite wrong. This official record shows a warming at the beginning of the 20th century and also at the end. The first warming is genuine, the second warming is an artifact, based on an incomplete analysis of all of the available data.

                        Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

                        Could it be that CO2 is not warming the climate at all? It is a topic that bears investigation. NOAA has not tackled this problem, likely because of ideological reasons. NOAA probably considers CO2 as a “pollutant.” It has been slow to change, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

                        There is still a discrepancy and disagreement between NOAA’s surface record and all other records of temperature in the last decades of the 20th century.

                        NOAA’s own radiosonde network shows no warming. All other data — including proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments — show no warming between 1977 and 1997. NOAA does analyze the atmospheric temperature data as obtained by NASA satellites, but has taken no action to explain the deficiencies of the surface record.

                        We conclude that the reported surface warming does not really exist but is an artifact of instrumentation changes. We can summarize this essay by stating that NOAA does a reasonable job on weather — although some would argue that point — but they can do a much better job on climate.

                        S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of the University of Virginia and a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute. He was among the first prominent scientists speaking out against global warming alarmism. An atmospheric and space physicist, he headed the U.S. Weather Satellite Service [now part of NOAA], founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

                        https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...eally-is-quite

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I was kidding about the "conspiracy" but I think there is a lot of what I would call "confirmation bias" going on in the whole climate change camp. And I think it does affect the data. An example would be NASA climatologists "knowing" the earth is warming and that there "wasn't a pause" so let's "find out where we went wrong" and coming to the conclusion that the "needed to adjust the data" to bring it in line with what they know it should read.
                          Keep your conspiracies straight, man - that was NOAA!

                          In all seriousness, it was NOAA that was accused of changing its data to get rid of the pause, not NASA. But all NOAA was doing in the end was using the latest versions of data that had gone through the peer reviewed literate a few years before.

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          And I do believe there is climate change going on, just not to the extent the scientists and media are making it out to be, nor as dire.
                          What do you base that belief on?

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          And I think the climate models are a joke. They can easily input their own biases into the models and come up with all sorts of wild predictions.
                          Do you know enough about how climate models are built and tested to understand how biases could be put in?
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Keep your conspiracies straight, man - that was NOAA!
                            NOAA, NASA whatever, all those secret gommint acronyms.
                            In all seriousness, it was NOAA that was accused of changing its data to get rid of the pause, not NASA. But all NOAA was doing in the end was using the latest versions of data that had gone through the peer reviewed literate a few years before.
                            Did you see that article I just posted?


                            What do you base that belief on?
                            Reality. I have been living through the entire time since before they were predicting an Ice Age was coming in the 70s. None of their predictions have come true. So they invented "a pause" but now they are trying to get rid of the pause because it makes them look bad.


                            Do you know enough about how climate models are built and tested to understand how biases could be put in?
                            I know enough about computer programs and computer modeling to know how they work and I know how chaotic the weather is and completely impossible to model correctly. And I know that models depend on the input variables put into them and the change rates programmed into them, which are all guesses and the people who are guessing are the same ones who already believe in global warming so of course their parameters are going to reflect what they believe. And I also know that modeling isn't actual "science" because it is not actual evidence from experimentation, it is merely guessing. And the guesses have all been wrong so far.

                            Hey I am sure there is a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect going on with me, thinking I know more than I actually do. I guess I will start taking climate change seriously when the proponents actually take it seriously. But while they buy expensive mansions on the beach, or fly around in private jets, while telling us peons to recycle and conserve, I will continue to think climate change is more political gamesmanship and religion than science.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Did you see that article I just posted?
                              I hadn't, but Fred Singer's been paid by think tanks to cast doubt on climate change, and the health risks of second hand smoke before that. He can't be relied on to present science accurately, as he generally hasn't.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Reality. I have been living through the entire time since before they were predicting an Ice Age was coming in the 70s. None of their predictions have come true. So they invented "a pause" but now they are trying to get rid of the pause because it makes them look bad.
                              So, i was around for that too. It was articles in the popular press, not science, that made those predictions.

                              And the pause thing... that's not at all what happened.

                              Look, i understand that this is hard. For every scientific study that makes a prediction, there's a dozen loudmouths who don't know what they're talking about that are also predicting things. And, because most of the media is scientifically illiterate, they amplify the wrong things. But if you're going to complain about the scientists here, you should probably do a better job of separating out the two.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I know enough about computer programs and computer modeling to know how they work and I know how chaotic the weather is and completely impossible to model correctly.
                              We can stop right there, because climate models aren't modeling the weather. They produce weather as a byproduct, but they're about identifying the statistics of common states in a chaotic system.

                              If you want to know more about how they're put together, this is one of the more detailed descriptions i've seen:
                              https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...imple-science/

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Hey I am sure there is a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect going on with me, thinking I know more than I actually do. I guess I will start taking climate change seriously when the proponents actually take it seriously. But while they buy expensive mansions on the beach, or fly around in private jets, while telling us peons to recycle and conserve, I will continue to think climate change is more political gamesmanship and religion than science.
                              Well, for what it's worth, i recycle everything that i can and do the vast majority of my travel on public transit. Because i do understand the science, and it seriously scares me. And that's coming from someone who also knows a fair bit about the science of AI, genetic engineering, ebola, and various other things that people commonly suggest are going to destroy the world. None of those really scare me.
                              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                I hadn't, but Fred Singer's been paid by think tanks to cast doubt on climate change, and the health risks of second hand smoke before that. He can't be relied on to present science accurately, as he generally hasn't.
                                maybe that is just a smear campaign put out there by THEM!

                                And isn't it a bit of an ad hominem to just dismiss him like that and not even respond to anything he says?


                                So, i was around for that too. It was articles in the popular press, not science, that made those predictions.
                                I don't think a lot of this is "science" I think a lot of it is politics. There is also a lot of peer pressure to conform to the Climate Change theory. You will be mocked, ostracized and refused funding if you go against the grain. It is almost like a religion. The purse strings are held by the priests, I mean politicians, who basically use the information as a way to push through their agendas.


                                And the pause thing... that's not at all what happened.
                                right. because we can change the data to show that it didn't and we have good excuses why it needed changing.

                                Look, i understand that this is hard. For every scientific study that makes a prediction, there's a dozen loudmouths who don't know what they're talking about that are also predicting things. And, because most of the media is scientifically illiterate, they amplify the wrong things. But if you're going to complain about the scientists here, you should probably do a better job of separating out the two.
                                The narrative seems to be if the weather agrees with the alarmists, then it is global warming. But if it doesn't, then it is just weather or loudmouth pundits who don't know what they are talking about. When Al Gore was predicting the end of the world in his first movie, the scientists and media were happy to go along. But when his predictions (or rather, the science he was quoting) failed, throw him under the bus!

                                We can stop right there, because climate models aren't modeling the weather. They produce weather as a byproduct, but they're about identifying the statistics of common states in a chaotic system.

                                If you want to know more about how they're put together, this is one of the more detailed descriptions i've seen:
                                https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...imple-science/
                                I know how computer models work. The algorithms control everything and the people writing them are the ones who already believe in the conclusions they are trying to model.
                                And they have all been wrong on any long term predictions. That kinda puts the knife in it for me. They are useful tools for getting funding. That's it.

                                Well, for what it's worth, i recycle everything that i can and do the vast majority of my travel on public transit. Because i do understand the science, and it seriously scares me. And that's coming from someone who also knows a fair bit about the science of AI, genetic engineering, ebola, and various other things that people commonly suggest are going to destroy the world. None of those really scare me.
                                I am waiting for the zombie apocalypse so I can join the winning side.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-15-2020, 11:30 PM
                                0 responses
                                34 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2020, 08:09 AM
                                2 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-15-2020, 08:00 AM
                                10 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Leonhard  
                                Started by TheLurch, 09-12-2020, 11:32 AM
                                10 responses
                                121 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Seeker, 09-11-2020, 10:50 PM
                                19 responses
                                286 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X