Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Cuddles]

Can you explain your assertion that they altered data? The chart I posted and the chart you posted are IDENTICAL except for the chart I posted having added an arrow denoting when we are on the time axis.

This is so obviously false I have difficulty imagining why you would claim it. On your graph, the bar for 2010 is a little less than 20%. On the real graph, it's around 22.5%. This is the difference between being well above the mean and well below it. Since the whole point of your graph is to pretend that it's currently below the mean (not that that would prove anything anyway), it's rather obvious that it has been edited to show that.

And as for where the chart came from, isn't it obvious that it came from your link?

Not at all. It's likely the original was taken from there, but since it's obviously been altered it's not at all clear where your fake version came from.

Is that an exaggeration, or does it really take years to run computer analyses of specific events to calculate whether global warming made it more or less likely? And what kind of times are involved in modeling future trends? Is that a years-long proposition as well? I had assumed (yes, I know) that computer programs took maybe months to set up and run, but years?? How does that work? Is it because computer time is in dribs and drabs or is this years of constant running the program?

Neither. It's because it's not just a simple matter of setting up a model and then running it once. Doing things properly takes time. You need multiple runs, independent checks, probably various different setups with different parameters and different assumptions, maybe even different models.

You're probably aware of how weather prediction is done, where they run several models multiple times with slightly different starting conditions, and basically take the most common result as their prediction of the most likely outcome? Now imagine doing that not for a few days of whether, but for a century. Probably going to take a while. In fact, this is implicit in the description of what they did - they compared predictions of what would happen with and without the industrial revolution. That means running the whole model multiple times with different starting conditions and seeing what the difference is, then comparing that with what has actually been observed. Not just lots of computing time, but also lots of comparisons as well.

Is this time-frame common in science?

Yes.

To put things in a little perspective, I use an FEA code to analyse the effects of particles travelling through various structures. This generally involves structures well under a metre long, and ultimately boils down to just Maxwell's equations. A single run will usually take close to a week, and for a single structure there will usually need to be at least two or three runs, not including time setting up the model or analysing the results afterwards. So if I work full time on that one thing (which is never the case), it's likely to be at least a month before I have a result. Britain is a lot bigger than that, climate is a lot more complex, and centuries is a lot longer than the fraction of a second I look at.

If so, why doesn't stuff like this get mentioned (unglamorous, I know) so ordinary people have some idea of the difficulties and magnitudes of work involved.

Firstly, it clearly is mentioned. It's right there in the article.

However, people don't always make a big fuss about it because it's irrelevant. What matters is the results, not boasting about how long it took you to get them.

And what is the bit about computer time donated by the public?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects

 

[Furcifer]

It's not actually a fact.

The science is in its infancy. The primary forcing is poorly understood, as are most. Scientists are quick to admit we know very little about how the climate actually works.

The data is adjusted to account for known biases, the assumptions are not incorrect, and the methods of data acquisition are completely scientific. This makes for very good estimates, as has been borne out by events.

We'll see about that. Here's a good article over at WUWT about Australians questioning their temperature record. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/climate-audit-requested-of-the-australian-bom-and-csiro/
We'll see in the near future how reliable these adjustments really are.

We have many decades of good climate data sufficient to estimate global means. The world is getting warmer and it's getting warmer faster. These are facts you tend to ignore. Repeatedly. Ad infinitum.

Nonsense. These are just alarmist musings, not the beliefs held by the scientific community.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
Neither. It's because it's not just a simple matter of setting up a model and then running it once. Doing things properly takes time. You need multiple runs, independent checks, probably various different setups with different parameters and different assumptions, maybe even different models.

You're probably aware of how weather prediction is done, where they run several models multiple times with slightly different starting conditions, and basically take the most common result as their prediction of the most likely outcome? Now imagine doing that not for a few days of whether, but for a century. Probably going to take a while. In fact, this is implicit in the description of what they did - they compared predictions of what would happen with and without the industrial revolution. That means running the whole model multiple times with different starting conditions and seeing what the difference is, then comparing that with what has actually been observed. Not just lots of computing time, but also lots of comparisons as well.



Yes.

To put things in a little perspective, I use an FEA code to analyse the effects of particles travelling through various structures. This generally involves structures well under a metre long, and ultimately boils down to just Maxwell's equations. A single run will usually take close to a week, and for a single structure there will usually need to be at least two or three runs, not including time setting up the model or analysing the results afterwards. So if I work full time on that one thing (which is never the case), it's likely to be at least a month before I have a result. Britain is a lot bigger than that, climate is a lot more complex, and centuries is a lot longer than the fraction of a second I look at.



Firstly, it clearly is mentioned. It's right there in the article.

However, people don't always make a big fuss about it because it's irrelevant. What matters is the results, not boasting about how long it took you to get them.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects

Thank you for your answer. It helped me better understand some of what's involved. Although the times involved were mentioned, as you say, in this article, I don't think that it is common in the popular press (including television stories) to do so.

I'm sorry I expressed myself poorly; I didn't mean that the results were not important, only the time spent. The amount of time to accomplish anything in science just seemed so astounding to a liberal arts major who only knows what she reads on the Internet, even including a few science websites and "science headlines."

And with an anti-science/science-deficient environment in the U.S., any ignorance about the processes involved in the scientific method and/or reaching conclusions seems to be a chink in the armor of truth that deniers and others of that ilk look for to attack. Easier to say "why don't these studies show..." or "see, there aren't studies about this as well" than to point out that sometimes data aren't available for certain studies, or that studies may be ongoing with years before completion.

I don't know how many other non-scientists share my ignorance on the subject of study lengths and other questions of process. I just thought that the less ignorance on the part of the general public, the better the chances for accepting the science. A clear, step-by-step process isn't as frightening as some white-coated mad scientist pulling results from nowhere. That was all my PR comment addressed. Science is poorly explained to and understood by the general public, at least in the U.S. And, by and large, "don't understand" leads to "don't trust." When the sound-bites explaining scientific processes that lead to conclusions of varying certainty equal the sound-bites knocking conclusions with no explanation of process or constraints, maybe more people will choose to look instead of ignore.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is so obviously false I have difficulty imagining why you would claim it. On your graph, the bar for 2010 is a little less than 20%. On the real graph, it's around 22.5%.

LOL! Did you even once consider the possibility that the creator of that chart simply used the http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/ site at a different time … when the data in the index was slightly different? Seriously, do you really think that the author of that chart (here is where he posted it originally: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103900 ) went to all the trouble to alter that one tiny bit of the chart (even changing the position of the green line)? That's INSANE. You yourself admitted that particular point being below the line wouldn't prove anything. Indeed, the point of the author is made by looking at the characteristics of the entire chart. The last data point is entirely irrelevant so why would he alter it? No, what he did is quite obvious to any thinking person ... use the http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph.php?period=01-12&indicator=cei.tc tool in mid January of 2011 while TShaitanaku used the tool in mid February. When the January data was slightly different ... not yet complete. And note that it is the January 2011 column that has different values between the two charts. Just the January 2011 column. Seriously, you guys are getting desperate if logic like this is now your defense of Global Warming.

 

[Furcifer]

All the more sad that there is no evidence of this in any of your postings.

Actually this is a flat out lie. I challenge you to support your statement or withdraw it. What physics have you presented that I couldn't or didn't understand?

I just don't believe the alarmism is warranted. The fact is climate science is only beginning to understand feedback and forcing. Reliable data from satellite sources is relatively new. Computing power is still a fraction of what it needs to be in order to render models with exacting resolution. There's simply decades of research needed before any determination can be made about where the climate is headed in the next 100 years.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is this time-frame common in science? If so, why doesn't stuff like this get mentioned (unglamorous, I know) so ordinary people have some idea of the difficulties and magnitudes of work involved. A writer researches a biography for years and we're impressed. Scientific studies come out and may elicit headlines and sound-bites. No mention of the massive amounts of time and work involved. So maybe all the other scientists already know this, but you're trying to sell science to the average Joe. And right now, Science needs a better PR guy. It's not just amazing that anything gets done, it's a freaking miracle (in any non-theistic, theistic, figural, or actual sense you want).

Scientists aren't trying to sell to the average Joe when they write papers, and for most that's all they do. It's really down to science journalists to make the bridge to the general public. The interested amateur is well-served by many excellent scientist- communicators, who have chosen to perform that role. Governments and corporations have their own well-established links to the scientific world. Successful ones do, anyway .

And what is the bit about computer time donated by the public? Don't scientists get government money for computer time in the UK?

They do, but there's still an enormous potential sitting on people's desks doing nothing most of the time. I'm from a time when the entire campus housed less computing power than a frickin' mobile phone has these days, and every second was precious. If you had to tread on toes to get a few more, so be it ...

Anyhoo, whatever's funded by institutions, there's always more that can be done by this massed array of otherwise wasted clock-cycles.

 

[Warmer1]

We'll see about that. Here's a good article over at WUWT about Australians questioning their temperature record.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/1...bom-and-csiro/

We'll see in the near future how reliable these adjustments really are.

From WhatsUpMyB... at the link above

Climate Audit requested of the Australian BoM and CSIRO
Posted on February 15, 2011 by Anthony Watts

On Jo Nova’s site, the cat is set amongst the pigeons:

So who is Jo Nova?

Well here she is -TA DA! and it's only a single person and she's not a climate scientist. What a surprise!
http://joannenova.com.au/about/biog/

Who is Joanne?

Speaking
Joanne has given keynote addresses and dinner speeches at national conferences and launches, for groups like CPA’s (Certified Practicing Accountants), Transplant Nurses Association, Aged Care Australia, BDS Accounting, The Australian Science Teachers Association, The Australian Science Festival, ACTEW (ACT Electricity and Water), and Amnesty International.
She’s a specialist on anti-aging, genetics and the future of medicine, as well as on the science of using humour and images to get a message across. Joanne has also performed for over 50,000 students around Australia. The science shows got rave reviews.


On Radio
For two years Joanne talked each week on 2CN in Canberra as well as other stations in country WA, Geelong, Brisbane. In the five minute prime-time spot she discussed the news and science of things like sperm, cooking, health and sleep. Joanne once filled in for the ever popular Dr Karl Kruszelnicki on ABC stations around Australia.

In all honesty Joanne may know more about sperm than AGW?

Well I'm sure according to some individuals this turns the science on it's head.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm approving the latest set of posts without modification, but you guys really need to tone it down. Please remember your moderator agreement, especially Rule 12. Address the argument in a civil and polite manner, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

 

[Furcifer]

In all honesty Joanne may know more about sperm than AGW?

That seems like a rather odd thing to notice and report back on.
Did it catch your eye?

Plus you deliberately left out her so called "Qualifications"

"Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and both the FH Faulding, and The Swan Brewery Prizes, at the University of Western Australia. She majored in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU, and worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at the Australian National University."

She's a scientist and has more than enough experience with collecting, recording and evaluating data sets. All of which seems relevant to the issue at hand.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be a climate scientist in order to call for an audit of the recorded temperatures?

 

[Trakar]

The science is in its infancy. The primary forcing is poorly understood, as are most. Scientists are quick to admit we know very little about how the climate actually works.

These are your interpretations, not those of the scientific community actually involved and active in climate science. This isn't to say that there isn't more to learn and understand, but that is true of every single field of valid scientific research I can think of,...bar none.

We'll see about that. Here's a good article over at WUWT about Australians questioning their temperature record...

by what standard do you assess "good"? it certainly isn't good science, nor objective and referenced reportage. but then it is about what one should expect from a political pseudoscience blog.

Nonsense. These are just alarmist musings, not the beliefs held by the scientific community.

So you are saying that you agree with the mainstream scientific community's impressions as they are typified and measured by evidences such as these:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

[Trakar]

LOL! Did you even once consider the possibility that the creator of that chart simply used the http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/ site at a different time … when the data in the index was slightly different? Seriously, do you really think that the author of that chart (here is where he posted it originally: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103900 ) went to all the trouble to alter that one tiny bit of the chart (even changing the position of the green line)? That's INSANE.

The ending of the green line, with indicator "you are here" arrow is all the perp's doing, not part of the NOAA graph, and as it indicates And this just demonstrates one of the problems with using political pseudoscience blog postings instead of referenced source science and official publications for your information.

You yourself admitted that particular point being below the line wouldn't prove anything. Indeed, the point of the author is made by looking at the characteristics of the entire chart. The last data point is entirely irrelevant so why would he alter it? No, what he did is quite obvious to any thinking person ... use the http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph.php?period=01-12&indicator=cei.tc tool in mid January of 2011 while TShaitanaku used the tool in mid February. When the January data was slightly different ... not yet complete. And note that it is the January 2011 column that has different values between the two charts. Just the January 2011 column.

(BTW, each of the columns in those graphs represent years, not months)

My primary issue was with the significance of the filtered chart data with regards to any issue raised, the obvious and apparent distortion of data merely threw the entire presentation into question to the degree that discussing the rest of the issues, were unnecessary. If you would like to abandon your faux graphs and pseudoscience political bloggery, and discuss the science, I'd be happy to engage in such a discussion.

The first issue for you to address is how a graphical presentation of filtered US data (which is primarily depicting extreme weather events in the US including hurricanes that make landfall on US shores) is representative of Global climate patterns and shifts?

Why are these NOAA charts less useful or indicative of conditions in the US over the last century:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph.php?period=01-12&indicator=1

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph.php?period=01-12&indicator=2c

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph.php?period=01-12&indicator=4

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph.php?period=01-12&indicator=5

Seriously, you guys are getting desperate if logic like this is now your defense of Global Warming.

Cherry picked, selectively filtered, regional weather data which still required alteration in order to be considered persuasive evidence on a political pseudoscience blog might be considered "desperate,"...but, personally I suspect it is more an issue of those who don't much understand or adhere to basic science and scientific understanding, allowing confirmational biases to combine with their lack of understandings in seeking pseudoscience support for their political preferences and agendae.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem
Nope, wrong again. I have extensive knowledge in physics and thermodynamics well beyond anything you've ever dreamed of. I'm quite sure I've forgot more than you know (I've got the marks to prove it)

All the more sad that there is no evidence of this in any of your postings.

Actually this is a flat out lie. I challenge you to support your statement or withdraw it...

The fact of your rejections and denial of mainstream scientific understandings with regards to multiple areas and fields involved in climate science in your postings here, demonstrate and proof my statements. When you quit citing political pseudoscience blogs and thier arguments and engage in knowledgable and referenced discourse upon actual issues of physics and thermodynamics, I will joyfully revise and append my statement, until then, however, they are accurate and well supported by the content of your own postings.

 

[Warmer1]

We'll see about that. Here's a good article over at WUWT about Australians questioning their temperature record. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/1...bom-and-csiro/
We'll see in the near future how reliable these adjustments really are.

Your reference is to one single scientist, whom is not a climate scientist, who is not focused soley on climate science by any means "calling for an audit of the recorded temperatures."

This is not scientific evidence at all.

Nonsense. These are just alarmist musings, not the beliefs held by the scientific community.

We have yet to see any links to scientific articles that support your claims? Specifically what scientific community are you refering to?

Please start posting links.

 

[Furcifer]

The fact of your rejections and denial of mainstream scientific understandings with regards to multiple areas and fields involved in climate science in your postings here, demonstrate and proof my statements. When you quit citing political pseudoscience blogs and thier arguments and engage in knowledgable and referenced discourse upon actual issues of physics and thermodynamics, I will joyfully revise and append my statement, until then, however, they are accurate and well supported by the content of your own postings.

Utter nonsense. It's specifically because of my extensive scientific knowledge I realize how immature this science really is. My own opinions on this matter are backed by 95% of the climate science community. This is why I choose to fight the blind alarmism being expressed by mainstream AGW proponents who misrepresent the scientific consensus. There are published professional scientists still questioning the role of anthropogenic CO2 in climate change! Try and remember this is science and not politics or religion.

 

[Furcifer]

These are your interpretations, not those of the scientific community actually involved and active in climate science.

Incorrect, this is the result of the most recent polling of climate scientists. I stay abreast of the science and don't distract myself with politically motivated websites.

This isn't to say that there isn't more to learn and understand, but that is true of every single field of valid scientific research I can think of,...bar none.

as if scientists are lining up for grants to study Newtonian mechanics! That's such a hoot! Any recent advancements on the coefficient of friction?

by what standard do you assess "good"? it certainly isn't good science, nor objective and referenced reportage. but then it is about what one should expect from a political pseudoscience blog.

I don't read RealClimate or Skeptical Science so I don't know much about these pseudoscience blogs.

So you are saying that you agree with the mainstream scientific community's impressions as they are typified and measured by evidences such as these:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Consensus opinion based on what we know today, which is very, very little. What alarmists constantly fail to mention is that this is about a significant human contribution to the 0.5 degree warming measured using questionable sources and methods over the last 150 years!
Just to reiterate, 95% of scientists say "Yah it warmed an imperceptible amount over the last 150 years because of all the fossil fuel we've burned"
If there's a more vague way of forming "consensus" science hasn't yet discovered it. I willing to bet if you polled climate scientists you couldn't get 95% of them to agree this amounts to consensus on AGW

 

[bit_pattern]

Actually this is a flat out lie. I challenge you to support your statement or withdraw it. What physics have you presented that I couldn't or didn't understand?

I just don't believe the alarmism is warranted. The fact is climate science is only beginning to understand feedback and forcing. Reliable data from satellite sources is relatively new. Computing power is still a fraction of what it needs to be in order to render models with exacting resolution. There's simply decades of research needed before any determination can be made about where the climate is headed in the next 100 years.

Speaking of feedbacks... :

What if the Amazon tips from a carbon sink to a source?
By Chris Lang, 17th February 2011

What if the Amazon tips from a carbon sink to a source?

In the past few years, the Amazon has faced two “one in a century” droughts. Last year’s drought covered a larger area of the Amazon and was even more severe than the 2005 drought. In both years huge amounts of carbon was released to the atmosphere as trees died. During these severe droughts, the Amazon turned from a carbon sink to a major carbon source.

Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100]

The thaw and release of carbon currently frozen in permafrost will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and amplify surface warming to initiate a positive permafrost carbon feedback (PCF) on climate…. [Our] estimate may be low because it does not account for amplified surface warming due to the PCF itself…. We predict that the PCF will change the arctic from a carbon sink to a source after the mid-2020s and is strong enough to cancel 42–88% of the total global land sink. The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2011.00527.x/full

 

[Trakar]

March issue of Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society is out...

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1938.toc

Interesting theme.

(...)
Owen Kellie-Smithand Peter M. Cox
Emergent dynamics of the climate–economy system in the Anthropocene
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A March 13, 2011 369:868-886; doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0305
AbstractFull Text Full Text (PDF)
(...)
Toby Tyrrell
Anthropogenic modification of the oceans
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A March 13, 2011 369:887-908; doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0334
AbstractFull Text Full Text (PDF)
(...)
Alan M. Haywood, Andy Ridgwell, Daniel J. Lunt, Daniel J. Hill, Matthew J. Pound, Harry J. Dowsett, Aisling M. Dolan, Jane E. Francis, and Mark Williams
Are there pre-Quaternary geological analogues for a future greenhouse warming?
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A March 13, 2011 369:933-956; doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0317
AbstractFull Text Full Text (PDF)
(...)
Erle C. Ellis
Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A March 13, 2011 369:1010-1035; doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0331
AbstractFull Text Full Text (PDF)
(...)

Interesting reading,...for those interested in some seemingly well considered, scholarly prepared, supportingly referenced assessments of some of the issues of man's interactions with the planet we inhabit.

 

[Trakar]

Speaking of feedbacks... :

And let's not forget the oceans which have been the main historic sink for carbon, and which are already in the process of becoming a source.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceanCarbonSink.php

and the already mentioned

Anthropogenic modification of the oceans - http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/green_ocean/publications/ROC/Tyrrell 2011.pdf

 

[BenBurch]

We appear to be on track for a record low sea ice extent and sea ice area in February.

If this is combined with a return of the arctic dipole this summer, we may have a record low end-of-season.

 

[Trakar]

Utter nonsense. It's specifically because of my extensive scientific knowledge I realize how immature this science really is. My own opinions on this matter are backed by 95% of the climate science community. This is why I choose to fight the blind alarmism being expressed by mainstream AGW proponents who misrepresent the scientific consensus.

Unfortunately, regardless of your personal opinions, all I can assess are the writings you contribute as posts to this site, and those posts do not accurately reflect any of the above.

There are published professional scientists still questioning the role of anthropogenic CO2 in climate change! Try and remember this is science and not politics or religion.

An amusing assertion, and if it were presented as a scientific assessment with supporting references and evidences, rather than proclaimed as a dictum from above (ala most political and religious rhetoric), I'd be much more inclined to give the issue more consideration and discussion.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

AR4 the science of climate change - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change - http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change - http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Expert Credibility in Climate Change - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Examining the Scientific Concensus on Climate Change - http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change - http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

There are outlier opinions and considerations in every field of scientific research. This does not mean that the outlier should be given equal consideration. Such equity is achieved through compelling evidenciary support and publication, lacking that it is simply an outlier consideration with little or no evidenciary support.