Technology0 min ago
An Inconvenient Rant?
95 Answers
http://
Do we really need climate change advice from the septics?
Do we really need climate change advice from the septics?
Answers
There would be no hypocrisy as far as I am concerned, Jim,. Let other nations do as they wish (which is pretty much what those outside the EU – and even some within - do anyway and we’ll do likewise. I don’t know who first put forward the bathtub explanation. I was (and indeed still am) struggling to understand how small variations in the 4% of global...
18:04 Wed 23rd Sep 2015
-- answer removed --
This link suggests a period 100,000 years ago.
http://
http://
-- answer removed --
"Total cumulative emissions from 1870 to 2013 were 390±20 GtC from fossil fuels and cement, and 145± 50 from land use change.
The total of 535±55GtC was partitioned among the atmosphere (225±5 GtC), ocean (150±20 GtC), and the land (155±60 GtC)."
http://
It says GtC means "billions of tonnes of carbon" Gigatonnes, I suppose.
Small tap, NJ?
The total of 535±55GtC was partitioned among the atmosphere (225±5 GtC), ocean (150±20 GtC), and the land (155±60 GtC)."
http://
It says GtC means "billions of tonnes of carbon" Gigatonnes, I suppose.
Small tap, NJ?
Jim360 - "... The last 18 years have also included several of the warmest on record, so that the world hasn't warmed up all that much during that time is quoting only half of the data, and potentially rather misleading..."
You say that, but is it really true? We've had ground-based stations (Stevenson screens or boxes) [SB's] for over a hundred years:
https:/
SB's are thermometers placed in weather-proof boxes in various locations around the world. Some are well maintained. Some are not. What they essentially do is measure temperature at ground level (or just above it). However, they are subject to a myriad of factors that call their accuracy into question. First there's the question of instrumentation failure/bias (ie. is the equipment in the box measuring the temperature correctly?). Then there's user error (ie. an incorrect visual reading of the temps.). Then there's the fact that almost all of the SB's have little or no record of whether or not they've been moved - and a great deal have, often more than once, meaning that their recording history is deeply flawed. Then there's the matter of urbanisation and the attendant urban heat island effect (UHIE). The UHIE as you will know means that lots of concrete at asphalt in towns and cities retains heat from the sun during the day and cools more slowly than any surrounding rural areas. Urban environments can be many degrees higher both during the day and at night than their more rural surroundings. Then there the process of "homogenisation" that artificially alters the temperature records by making the past appear cooler and the present appear warmer thus exaggerating the current "warming" trend. This is a mathematical technique originally used in geological investigations (gold mining in particular) that has been fundamentally miss-applied to the temperate record. This flagrant methodological fudge is an outrageous statistical fraud and worthy of a discussion on its own.
So is it true that the past few years have seen record temperatures? If you believe the ground-based station record that has been manipulated then, yes it has. However, if you look at the RSS satellite data, it tells a very different story. The satellite date isn't subject to the inherent problems that the SB's have. The satellite data is the most accurate record of temperature we have. Unfortunately, we've only had it since the late 1970s but what it says is that there has been no statistically significant global warming for nearly 20 years. The trend line for temperature increase is zero. For almost a generation, there has been no warming of the Earth.
Having said all this, let's take a look at the claim that the recent years have been the hottest ever. It was reported in the press that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. This claim, made by NASA, said that 2014 was the hottest year ever by... 0.02C: a figure so small that it lies outside of the error bars of measurement (ie. a figure that cannot be verified by any physical thermometer but which has been derived through maths). However, after NASA's press release - that was picked up by almost every national newspaper on the planet and reported as fact - it emerged that the truth was somewhat different. According to Gavin Schmidt (of NASA's GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies]) the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is 38%.
Now, I'm no mathematician, but if someone is only 38% sure they may be right, then it stands to reason that they're 62% sure that they may be wrong.
What rational person would confidently conclude that 2014 was the hottest year on record when the accuracy of the measurement is beyond what we are physically capable of measuring and the confidence of the result is less than can be attributed to random chance?
Further reading about the NASA GISS result:
http://
You say that, but is it really true? We've had ground-based stations (Stevenson screens or boxes) [SB's] for over a hundred years:
https:/
SB's are thermometers placed in weather-proof boxes in various locations around the world. Some are well maintained. Some are not. What they essentially do is measure temperature at ground level (or just above it). However, they are subject to a myriad of factors that call their accuracy into question. First there's the question of instrumentation failure/bias (ie. is the equipment in the box measuring the temperature correctly?). Then there's user error (ie. an incorrect visual reading of the temps.). Then there's the fact that almost all of the SB's have little or no record of whether or not they've been moved - and a great deal have, often more than once, meaning that their recording history is deeply flawed. Then there's the matter of urbanisation and the attendant urban heat island effect (UHIE). The UHIE as you will know means that lots of concrete at asphalt in towns and cities retains heat from the sun during the day and cools more slowly than any surrounding rural areas. Urban environments can be many degrees higher both during the day and at night than their more rural surroundings. Then there the process of "homogenisation" that artificially alters the temperature records by making the past appear cooler and the present appear warmer thus exaggerating the current "warming" trend. This is a mathematical technique originally used in geological investigations (gold mining in particular) that has been fundamentally miss-applied to the temperate record. This flagrant methodological fudge is an outrageous statistical fraud and worthy of a discussion on its own.
So is it true that the past few years have seen record temperatures? If you believe the ground-based station record that has been manipulated then, yes it has. However, if you look at the RSS satellite data, it tells a very different story. The satellite date isn't subject to the inherent problems that the SB's have. The satellite data is the most accurate record of temperature we have. Unfortunately, we've only had it since the late 1970s but what it says is that there has been no statistically significant global warming for nearly 20 years. The trend line for temperature increase is zero. For almost a generation, there has been no warming of the Earth.
Having said all this, let's take a look at the claim that the recent years have been the hottest ever. It was reported in the press that 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded. This claim, made by NASA, said that 2014 was the hottest year ever by... 0.02C: a figure so small that it lies outside of the error bars of measurement (ie. a figure that cannot be verified by any physical thermometer but which has been derived through maths). However, after NASA's press release - that was picked up by almost every national newspaper on the planet and reported as fact - it emerged that the truth was somewhat different. According to Gavin Schmidt (of NASA's GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies]) the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is 38%.
Now, I'm no mathematician, but if someone is only 38% sure they may be right, then it stands to reason that they're 62% sure that they may be wrong.
What rational person would confidently conclude that 2014 was the hottest year on record when the accuracy of the measurement is beyond what we are physically capable of measuring and the confidence of the result is less than can be attributed to random chance?
Further reading about the NASA GISS result:
http://
If you like satellite data, birdie, you'll love this one
http://
As blog's go I have to say 80% of the richness comes from the comments section which is a rare treat compared to conventional comment sections.
I don't understand all of the jargon but can glean that arctic ice extent, thickness and (derived) volume has so many input influences (winds, current flows, sea state, gyrs, prior year's ice and more) that it is one of the most complex (as in difficult to predict) systems in nature that I can think of.
I wanted to construct an argument around latent heat and the way that change of state affects temperature rise but I guess the ice bath/bunsen burner lab demonstration doesn't... cut much ice.
(wince)
http://
As blog's go I have to say 80% of the richness comes from the comments section which is a rare treat compared to conventional comment sections.
I don't understand all of the jargon but can glean that arctic ice extent, thickness and (derived) volume has so many input influences (winds, current flows, sea state, gyrs, prior year's ice and more) that it is one of the most complex (as in difficult to predict) systems in nature that I can think of.
I wanted to construct an argument around latent heat and the way that change of state affects temperature rise but I guess the ice bath/bunsen burner lab demonstration doesn't... cut much ice.
(wince)
Ocean temperature anomaly measurements have been **dded up by a change of methodology from labour-expensive bucket-on-a-rope sampling to a low cost water intake valve setup but suction/pumping or any turbulence inducing method would actually add traces of heat to the water and step-changes in the data were noticed after the new method came in (ca. WWII).
Satellites can measure sea surface temperatures from on high but cannot see deeper than the top few feet. Warming in deeper layers could be occurring undetected.
Urban heat island measured against rural weather stations
https:/
This page says the largest anomalies on land are in the high latitude areas, northern Canada, Siberia.
ttbomk, these areas are not famed for their large cities but the permafrost is melting, regardless.
Satellites can measure sea surface temperatures from on high but cannot see deeper than the top few feet. Warming in deeper layers could be occurring undetected.
Urban heat island measured against rural weather stations
https:/
This page says the largest anomalies on land are in the high latitude areas, northern Canada, Siberia.
ttbomk, these areas are not famed for their large cities but the permafrost is melting, regardless.
Thanks divebuddy. Probably not an untypical funding request in the field. I suppose you will often need a reasonable buzzword to get funding in certain areas, especially if money is tight.
birdie -- I remember the 2014 result, and I was even slightly irritated at the 0.02 degree figure as it was a little conflated -- but I don't think that this counters my "some of the warmest on record", as you'd also have to ask the same about, say, most of the preceding decade. And on top of all that there's the point that the "no warming for almost the past 20 years" is based on "since 1998", which itself was the previous "warmest year on record". That has to be part of the context. That temperatures have remained at around the 1998 high for 20 years rather than increased is a bit of an anomaly, to be sure, but it would not be unexpected if, as I mentioned earlier, an additional natural cycle were in play. Climate science is hideously complex.
With respect to the satellite data I think you might be quoting only half the story there, too. Satellites don't directly record temperature anyway, so are subject to their own potential systematic flaws, and further there is data from multiple regions of the atmosphere, showing rises and falls in temperature in a manner that is interpreted as consistent with climate change models. I would need to do far more research to counter it properly, but if you don't quote the standard interpretation it seems like you are only giving half a truth.
I also wanted to quote the following:
"... towns and cities [retain] heat from the sun during the day and [cool] more slowly than any surrounding rural areas. Urban environments can be many degrees higher both during the day and at night than their more rural surroundings."
which, to me, reads like a tacit admission that humans can have a remarkably significant effect on local temperatures, measured not in fractions of degrees but whole numbers. If you ever wanted a more dramatic demonstration of how humans can affect the world around them, you've just found it yourself. The traditional interpretation of recent weather trends is measured typically in tenths of a degree per decade by comparison.
I'm inclined to leave things there in this thread, for the moment. You've evidently read into the methodology rather a lot more than I have lately, and I'd have to do more research to try to refute your claims more thoroughly -- in particular, I'd want to understand why the "traditional interpretation" of the satellite data supports climate change models (through increased atmospheric carbon levels).
birdie -- I remember the 2014 result, and I was even slightly irritated at the 0.02 degree figure as it was a little conflated -- but I don't think that this counters my "some of the warmest on record", as you'd also have to ask the same about, say, most of the preceding decade. And on top of all that there's the point that the "no warming for almost the past 20 years" is based on "since 1998", which itself was the previous "warmest year on record". That has to be part of the context. That temperatures have remained at around the 1998 high for 20 years rather than increased is a bit of an anomaly, to be sure, but it would not be unexpected if, as I mentioned earlier, an additional natural cycle were in play. Climate science is hideously complex.
With respect to the satellite data I think you might be quoting only half the story there, too. Satellites don't directly record temperature anyway, so are subject to their own potential systematic flaws, and further there is data from multiple regions of the atmosphere, showing rises and falls in temperature in a manner that is interpreted as consistent with climate change models. I would need to do far more research to counter it properly, but if you don't quote the standard interpretation it seems like you are only giving half a truth.
I also wanted to quote the following:
"... towns and cities [retain] heat from the sun during the day and [cool] more slowly than any surrounding rural areas. Urban environments can be many degrees higher both during the day and at night than their more rural surroundings."
which, to me, reads like a tacit admission that humans can have a remarkably significant effect on local temperatures, measured not in fractions of degrees but whole numbers. If you ever wanted a more dramatic demonstration of how humans can affect the world around them, you've just found it yourself. The traditional interpretation of recent weather trends is measured typically in tenths of a degree per decade by comparison.
I'm inclined to leave things there in this thread, for the moment. You've evidently read into the methodology rather a lot more than I have lately, and I'd have to do more research to try to refute your claims more thoroughly -- in particular, I'd want to understand why the "traditional interpretation" of the satellite data supports climate change models (through increased atmospheric carbon levels).
Some additions I would like to make about urban heat island: -
Heat lost as infra red is passing through the air without really heating it: horizontal surfaces are shining it straight out into space. A satellite designed to measure surface temperature in the form of infra red would certainly have its readings skewed by this radiant output.
Vertical building surfaces send it sideways, until it either hits terrain and gets re-radiated at slightly lower energy or it heads over the horizon and into space at an oblique angle that a top-down satellite might miss.
So, only conduction/convection heat transfer to the air is elevating local temperatures properly and the weather stations certainly do have their readings skewed by that.
Jim made the point for me that this means city sprawl, huge car parks and acres of roads certainly do add to human-caused climate change.
Heat lost as infra red is passing through the air without really heating it: horizontal surfaces are shining it straight out into space. A satellite designed to measure surface temperature in the form of infra red would certainly have its readings skewed by this radiant output.
Vertical building surfaces send it sideways, until it either hits terrain and gets re-radiated at slightly lower energy or it heads over the horizon and into space at an oblique angle that a top-down satellite might miss.
So, only conduction/convection heat transfer to the air is elevating local temperatures properly and the weather stations certainly do have their readings skewed by that.
Jim made the point for me that this means city sprawl, huge car parks and acres of roads certainly do add to human-caused climate change.
Jim - "... I'm inclined to leave things there in this thread, for the moment. You've evidently read into the methodology rather a lot more than I have lately, and I'd have to do more research to try to refute your claims more thoroughly..."
I would recommend that you do. I'm not being flippant or sarcastic here - I genuinely wish that more people would read widely on this topic. It's one that affects us all one way or another and yet the debate is bedevilled by fraudulent claims, suppressed data, unscientific practices and outright lies.
Jim - "... which, to me [my brief explanation of the UHIE], reads like a tacit admission that humans can have a remarkably significant effect on local temperatures, measured not in fractions of degrees but whole numbers..."
In so far as artificial structures made of concrete and asphalt have a local effect on ground level temperatures, I would agree that humans have changed the environment. In fact, I don't know of anyone who doesn't accept this as a basic premise. Humans change the environment all the time. What is under debate here and wider is whether humans are changing the climate of the entire planet and more specifically (and more importantly) if their actions are going to a have a catastrophic effect in the near future. Personally I think that, yes, humans do have and are having a effect on the climate. Is this effect measurable? No. Not when compared to natural variations. Is the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide going to have a catastrophic effect on climate? Absolutely not.
I would recommend that you do. I'm not being flippant or sarcastic here - I genuinely wish that more people would read widely on this topic. It's one that affects us all one way or another and yet the debate is bedevilled by fraudulent claims, suppressed data, unscientific practices and outright lies.
Jim - "... which, to me [my brief explanation of the UHIE], reads like a tacit admission that humans can have a remarkably significant effect on local temperatures, measured not in fractions of degrees but whole numbers..."
In so far as artificial structures made of concrete and asphalt have a local effect on ground level temperatures, I would agree that humans have changed the environment. In fact, I don't know of anyone who doesn't accept this as a basic premise. Humans change the environment all the time. What is under debate here and wider is whether humans are changing the climate of the entire planet and more specifically (and more importantly) if their actions are going to a have a catastrophic effect in the near future. Personally I think that, yes, humans do have and are having a effect on the climate. Is this effect measurable? No. Not when compared to natural variations. Is the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide going to have a catastrophic effect on climate? Absolutely not.
I would also like to add this into the mix. Can you think of a scientific endeavour or discipline that deliberately hides core data and refuses to make its methodology known the the wider scientific community?
I can. It's called Climatology. It operates unlike any other science. In fact, it's so unlike any other science that I would go so far as to say it's pseudoscience.
Let me explain. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, source data is given freely. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, methodology is transparent. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, the experiment (whatever that may be) is reproducible. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, the theory is falsifiable.
This is the essence of Popperian science: https:/
In Climate Science, all of the above criteria are routinely and wilfully disregarded. Many FOI requests in this country and abroad have been rewarded with nothing. In the case of our own Met Office, a recent FOI request for the original source temperature data - before any alterations/homogenisation were applied to it - was met with the answer that the original data no longer exists. It's been destroyed! All the Met Office now (claim to) have is the altered data. No further information was forthcoming. Nothing about how and why the data had been altered and nothing about the methodology that was applied to alter it. Basically, the Met Office (along with the BOM in Australia who have done the exact same thing) are saying, 'You don't need to see the source data. The is not the source data you are looking for. Trust us, we're Climate Scientists'.
In no other scientific field would this kind of behaviour and deliberate obfuscation be tolerated. It is anti-science. It is not reproducible, not testable, and above all not falsifiable.
If 'science' is not reproducible, testable and not falsifiable, it's *not* science.
I can. It's called Climatology. It operates unlike any other science. In fact, it's so unlike any other science that I would go so far as to say it's pseudoscience.
Let me explain. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, source data is given freely. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, methodology is transparent. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, the experiment (whatever that may be) is reproducible. In every scientific discipline other than Climate Science, the theory is falsifiable.
This is the essence of Popperian science: https:/
In Climate Science, all of the above criteria are routinely and wilfully disregarded. Many FOI requests in this country and abroad have been rewarded with nothing. In the case of our own Met Office, a recent FOI request for the original source temperature data - before any alterations/homogenisation were applied to it - was met with the answer that the original data no longer exists. It's been destroyed! All the Met Office now (claim to) have is the altered data. No further information was forthcoming. Nothing about how and why the data had been altered and nothing about the methodology that was applied to alter it. Basically, the Met Office (along with the BOM in Australia who have done the exact same thing) are saying, 'You don't need to see the source data. The is not the source data you are looking for. Trust us, we're Climate Scientists'.
In no other scientific field would this kind of behaviour and deliberate obfuscation be tolerated. It is anti-science. It is not reproducible, not testable, and above all not falsifiable.
If 'science' is not reproducible, testable and not falsifiable, it's *not* science.
And another thing...! No, not really. Just a bit of interesting info. If anyone's still reading this and would like to know how the UK's electricity is being generated at any given moment, check this site out:
http://
Currently, as I write this, the 5,400 offshore and onshore wind farms are generating a 1.09GW, or 4.52% of the UK's total energy requirements. This quite high. A couple of weeks ago, they were generating around 0.8% of power.
http://
Currently, as I write this, the 5,400 offshore and onshore wind farms are generating a 1.09GW, or 4.52% of the UK's total energy requirements. This quite high. A couple of weeks ago, they were generating around 0.8% of power.
@birdie
I've seen the wind gauge on that website get up to nearly 4GW on windy days. The history graph also shows how the gas and coal plants turn down the wick as the wind energy picks up. This is how renewables integrate to provide a good mix of sources.
Hover cursor over the wind dial and the help text says this:-
"Wind: This is the total contributed by metered wind farms. Wind power contributes about another 50% from embedded (or unmetered) wind turbines that shows only as a drop in demand. Wind like nuclear, will sell into any market price because turbines are expensive, wind is not and subsidies are always paid. The variability of wind leads to very high fluctuations in output."
This may need a rewrite if more categories of renewables subsidy get knobbled by Osbourne.
I've seen the wind gauge on that website get up to nearly 4GW on windy days. The history graph also shows how the gas and coal plants turn down the wick as the wind energy picks up. This is how renewables integrate to provide a good mix of sources.
Hover cursor over the wind dial and the help text says this:-
"Wind: This is the total contributed by metered wind farms. Wind power contributes about another 50% from embedded (or unmetered) wind turbines that shows only as a drop in demand. Wind like nuclear, will sell into any market price because turbines are expensive, wind is not and subsidies are always paid. The variability of wind leads to very high fluctuations in output."
This may need a rewrite if more categories of renewables subsidy get knobbled by Osbourne.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
News9 mins ago
