Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Orangeslice13]

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Peer review is an important process in every major field of science. Yes there can be limitations, such as a bias in small journals. If they are truly worried about that then they have the option of submitting to the journal of their choosing. The point of peer review isn't to decide whether they like the results or not, it's to decide if the author came to their conclusion on good basis.

You are essentially saying "Science that other experts in the field and non experts have reviewed should not be trusted because of the risk of a bias". Instead you want people to just publish whatever the hell they want. That is how bad science becomes disseminated.

I'm saying climate science is different than every other field of science due to politics.
I apologize if that wasn't clear

Edit: went back and reread. It was poorly worded

 

[AM64]

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Peer review is an important process in every major field of science. Yes there can be limitations, such as a bias in small journals. If they are truly worried about that then they have the option of submitting to the journal of their choosing. The point of peer review isn't to decide whether they like the results or not, it's to decide if the author came to their conclusion on good basis.

You are essentially saying "Science that other experts in the field and non experts have reviewed should not be trusted because of the risk of a bias". Instead you want people to just publish whatever the hell they want. That is how bad science becomes disseminated.

Sorry, but peer review although important can also be a lot like inbreeding. Math is math, physics is physics, chemistry is chemistry, etc regardless of the specific application. Sometimes it takes someone with a little more distance (with similar analytical experience in a different field) to ask the "dumb question". Unfortunately the involved politicians and "scientists" have colluded to ostracize and minimize anyone on the outside looking in; people who aren't hiding anything don't act that way.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Sorry, but peer review although important can also be a lot like inbreeding. Math is math, physics is physics, chemistry is chemistry, etc regardless of the specific application. Sometimes it takes someone with a little more distance (with similar analytical experience in a different field) to ask the "dumb question". Unfortunately the involved politicians and "scientists" have colluded to ostracize and minimize anyone on the outside looking in; people who aren't hiding anything don't act that way.

I think I understand what you are saying. The point of peer review is to essentially let qualified colleagues in your field determine the quality of your findings. You think that climate change has such a stigmatized agenda to it, that even qualified experts might be blinded in their bias. I understand that sentiment. My opinion is a bit more idealistic in that I think we should trust qualified scientists and researchers to recognize good science regardless of the controversy it might introduce.


I do think the paper should have been published through an actual journal, but even so there is a good chance that review articles will be published in response.

 

[AM64]

I think I understand what you are saying. The point of peer review is to essentially let qualified colleagues in your field determine the quality of your findings. You think that climate change has such a stigmatized agenda to it, that even qualified experts might be blinded in their bias. I understand that sentiment. My opinion is a bit more idealistic in that I think we should trust qualified scientists and researchers to recognize good science regardless of the controversy it might introduce.

Yes, that was my intent, and based on many years of testing and analysis. My problem is primarily the boundary conditions and the assumptions that have gone into climate research. For example, picking one particular point in time to show a trend and eliminating warm or cool periods before. The other big one has to do with record adjustments; if everyone is starting out with the same adjusted data, then it's no surprise that they get similar results with the selected data. That only proves that everybody can add two and two and get four, I'm so happy for them that they were able to get their calculations and computers calibrated.

There is probably no other topic of interest right now that has the potential to generate so much money for so many "investors" - whether it's never-ending research using tax dollars, developing new power generation, redeveloping anything that uses energy, the opportunity to politically punish by target and tax - the list goes on and on.

The funny thing is that a recent concept has been a community on Mars, and the people who believe it could happen, yet no one seems to think mankind can adapt to a far milder environmental change on Earth. I'd bet that when people start realizing they will be footing the bill for all of it and their lifestyles will be dramatically affected there will be far more skeptics - unfortunately a little too late for anything but paying the tab.

 

[LouderVol]

Do they're doing the same type of thing as the guys adjusting temperatures in the link I posted

The corporations are reporting false numbers, have been caught doing it. These numbers are lower than actual. The Chinese government then turns around and takes the cooked numbers and fakes them even more to the world to say, hey look we are lowering our amounts.

while they are quietly doing audits on reports and just now implementing stuff they were supposed to have online during the Olympics. The Chinese government and media fake their news/outlook worse than the US or Russia does.

 

[LouderVol]

imo, they are actually cutting down on coal, but they are still growing their other systems at a rate that is great than the reduction of coal. its hard to be certain because of how much they cook the numbers. I was reading about one of their new desert plants that was supposed to be a "hybrid" plant with coal and NG. Yet there was no NG pipe and the truck deliveries were supposedly only enough to keep those machines going. while their stack of coal got a whole new warehouse to store it.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Peer review absolutely can not be discarded. It is the foundation of good science.

Otherwise, Anyone can publish anything they want as if they're an expert in the field.

 

[Burger]

Peer review absolutely can not be discarded. It is the foundation of good science.

Otherwise, Anyone can publish anything they want as if they're an expert in the field.

What's the difference? That's what they do in colleges.

 

[BartW]

Hey Bart...... put this in your pipe and smoke it.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

You’ve got ‘em now!

Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming -
The best efforts to undermine the established climate science behind the Endangerment Finding are pathetically bad

The article pretty much sums it up. Before continuing, I must point out once again how easily the resident climate deniers flip flop between “The earth is warming, but humans are not responsible” and “the earth is not warming” (and occasionally later stages of climate denial). The same people holding up this paper claiming no warming will be touting “natural cycles” again before you know it. Such logical consistency...

Anyway, did you check the source?

Craig Idso – educated in geography, has worked for Peabody coal in various capacities since 2001 (among numerous ties to fossil fuel industries). Climate denial literally runs in his family.

Joe D’aleo – an evangelical meteorologist who believes “Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

I’ve never heard of the third guy, but he has a background in economics and engineering, and appears to only write sham “studies” like this with D’aleo for the infamous Heartland Institute and CATO Institute. None of these people have relevant expertise and none of them publish in peer reviewed scientific journals (as Michael Bastach and the Daily Caller would mislead you to believe). This is not a scientific study; it’s a wordpress blog citing other blogs and sham papers like this.

Frankly, the whole premise of this article is stupid and we’ve been over these “adjustments” numerous times. First of all, as the article points out, the net effect of the adjustments made by NOAA and NASA reduces the long term temperature trend. Second of all, these aren’t the only global surface temperature datasets; there are several, and all of them agree. Even the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which was funded by the Koch brothers and led by a former climate change doubter, found that NOAA and NASA agreed with their results. And again, as the article points out, there are numerous indicators of climate change besides direct temperature measurements (receding glaciers, rising sea levels, decreasing snowpack, changing seasons, etc) including the satellite temperature measurements that ‘skeptics’, including the authors of this “study”, love to reference. Speaking of...

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

Check out that last figure (won’t link correctly). Every adjustment has made the UAH satellite temperatures trend warmer. Such scandal!

Satellite temperature data, leaned on by climate change doubters, revised sharply upward

And it looks like it’s time for Spencer and Cristy to adjust their dataset once again. I wonder what SandVol thinks of all this

In fact my favorite part of this new “study” is where it shows that the surface and satellite temperatures largely agree while stating otherwise. Lmfao go look at their Figure VI-1. The trends are nearly identical, they just fit surface temperatures with a straight line and satellite temperatures with a step function. Did any of you actually read this? The whole thing is incredibly amateurish, even by climate denier standards. I’m legitimately embarrassed for you.

Please please please let the legion of Bannon challenge the endangerment finding with this trash. Get this willful ignorance out in the open. If this is Pruitt’s idea of a red team I’m all for it. It would be a futile exercise and complete waste of taxpayer money, but the entertainment value would be priceless.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

What's the difference? That's what they do in colleges.

Well, yes they do. But collegiate peer review is not the only, nor most important type of peer review. For instance, claimed breakthroughs in medicine must go through the process or you could be buying snake oil.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-importance-and-limitations-of-peer-review/

And engineering. Here, an article discusses the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) methodology.

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40889(201)119

So, peer review within the professional diciplines is one way they police themselves.

It's a lot more involved than just how it's done in college classrooms. But where new scientific claims are made by professors doing research, they must be repeatable by anyone with the right equipment.

 

[hog88]

Hot today Bart. Man made global warming confirmed.

 

[BartW]

I am saying China's pollution isn't slowing at all. They Chinese are falsely reporting cooked numbers to make it look like they are going down. well i guess the more accurate term would be leveling out.

China is doing a typical china thing and setting up a system that they can't lose at. And the powers that be with the Paris accord have already said they won't work with us, so how exactly would we be shaping things?

It is leveling out, as you put it. That’s why they have overcapacity problems. It’s also one of the main reasons our coal industry is suffering. Coal companies bet on growth that didn’t materialize. Global demand over the last few years has been lower than anticipated.

The United States is still in the Paris Accord for at least 4 more years. We can still take part in the working groups that iron out details of the implementation of the agreement. Of course, we have forfeited much of our influence since we’re on the way out already. But there really is nothing to renegotiate; the US can choose to rejoin/stay in this voluntary agreement or not. We could stay in the PCA and alter our voluntary commitment. Saying you want to “re-negotiate” the Paris Accord is nothing more than a delay tactic. It’s taken decades of diplomacy to get to this point and there is literally nothing in the framework of the agreement to renegotiate. If we want other countries to work with us, all we have to do is grow up and take this issue seriously.

 

[BartW]

My problem is primarily the boundary conditions and the assumptions that have gone into climate research. For example, picking one particular point in time to show a trend and eliminating warm or cool periods before. The other big one has to do with record adjustments; if everyone is starting out with the same adjusted data, then it's no surprise that they get similar results with the selected data. That only proves that everybody can add two and two and get four, I'm so happy for them that they were able to get their calculations and computers calibrated.

Oh, you mean like the whole "no global warming since 1998" myth that is incredibly still being perpetuated by the Daily Caller's "exclusive study"?

Nature Not NOAA Ended the Slowdown in Temperatures

NOAA, the UK’s Hadley Centre, and independent researchers Cowtan and Way (C&W) use effectively the same land data (the Global Historical Climatological Network, or GHCN for short). NASA also uses GHCN data, but adds additional stations in the U.S. and in the Arctic and Antarctic. Berkeley uses a much larger set of stations (about 36,000 stations, compared to around 7,000 for the other records), though NOAA will be switching to a similarly large database of stations soon. Berkeley, Hadley, and C&W all use a sea surface temperature series called HadSST3 produced by the Hadley Centre. NOAA and NASA use a sea surface temperature series called ERSST (version 4) produced by NOAA.

Automated adjustments to land data to remove detected problems like station moves or instrument changes are used by NOAA, NASA, and Berkeley Earth; Hadley and C&W do relatively little adjustments to land data outside of quality control. NOAA and Hadley only calculate temperatures in areas with nearby stations, while NASA, Berkeley, and C&W fill in areas without stations based on statistical techniques using the nearest available stations.

No matter which groups’ record you use, you end up with a pretty similar global temperature record.


The relatively lower 1998-present trends are also a result of cherry-picking the 1998 El Nino as a start date (since temperature were anomalously high at that point, the trend thereafter will be lower than starting before or after the El Nino event). For example, calculated trends from 1996 or 2000-present are more similar to the 1970-present trends.

And that was before 2016 became the hottest year both in the surface and satellite temperature records

 

[BartW]

"Meanwhile, Perry’s Energy Department is proposing to slash funding for research on carbon capture and storage science and technology. Carbon-capture research funding would decline from $100.8 million in 2017 to just $16 million in 2018 in the administration’s proposed budget, and carbon storage research dollars would similarly fall from $105.8 million to $15 million."

Is R&D supposed to be an endless burn of government funds? Each idea was researched and developed by over $100 million in 2017 alone. What carbon results have they come up with and how much more should be spent? Projects don't need to continue in perpetuity with enormous levels of funding by the government.

Oh, so carbon capture and storage didn’t mature in 2017, therefore we should give up on it?

I personally don’t think carbon capture and storage has as much potential as alternative energies, but that’s not the point. Did you miss the preceding paragraphs?

Perry, Zinke and Pruitt also heralded the launch of the Petra Nova plant in Texas, which captures carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and then uses it to help push additional oil out of largely depleted oil fields.

“Innovative technology like this is what will clean up the environment, not bad deals for the American people like the Paris agreement,” they wrote. “We will build on that success. Instead of preaching about clean energy, this administration will act on it.”

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration.

"We're gonna have clean, clean, coal!" k:

 

[AM64]

Oh, you mean like the whole "no global warming since 1998" myth that is incredibly still being perpetuated by the Daily Caller's "exclusive study"?

Nature Not NOAA Ended the Slowdown in Temperatures



And that was before 2016 became the hottest year both in the surface and satellite temperature records

That little chart is a tiny blip in the history of the earth's climate. Really it's what you people like to sarcastically refer to as weather when someone talks about it sure was a cold winter.

What's amazing is that people consistently fall for someone taking a small slice of "historical" data and "proving" the sky is falling. That was precisely the whole point about boundary conditions and assumptions - you can show any kind of trend that you want if you put the right bounds on the period.

Simply put, there's a lot of statistically sloppy work around these days. Some of it is just poor work ethic and some of it is done to prove a point - fraudulent comes to mind.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

That little chart is a tiny blip in the history of the earth's climate. Really it's what you people like to sarcastically refer to as weather when someone talks about it sure was a cold winter.

What's amazing is that people consistently fall for someone taking a small slice of "historical" data and "proving" the sky is falling. That was precisely the whole point about boundary conditions and assumptions - you can show any kind of trend that you want if you put the right bounds on the period.

Simply put, there's a lot of statistically sloppy work around these days. Some of it is just poor work ethic and some of it is done to prove a point - fraudulent comes to mind.

Seriously, what are the correct boundary years.

The terminal boundary has to be the current latest agreed upon data.

The initial boundary is the one you disagree with.

So all of the 20th century plus 16 or so years of this one aren't enough. 116 yrs.

How about since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution in the middle of the 18th century? Say 1750, so that gives us 267 yrs.

Not enough? How about 1659? The English Midlands

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/03/weather.features11

..."the Central England Temperature series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from 1659."...358 yrs.

OR we could do it by epoch. You know thousands of years. What makes sense? Since the Big Bang? Since the earth formed? Since life appeared?

HOW ABOUT since mankind appeared? That was about 200,000 years ago.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/did-humans-first-appear-earth-8532777bfa42e5d0

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Really, what should be the span of time we look at to be able to say, Somethings happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

But we KNOW the trajectory of temperature change, if it continues, WILL result in flooding of seaside floodplains.

I don't care if it is manmade or not. It does not look good if the trend continues.

Anyone who chooses at this time to buy lots or build on ocean front property could well see personal financial loss.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Oh, so carbon capture and storage didn’t mature in 2017, therefore we should give up on it?

I personally don’t think carbon capture and storage has as much potential as alternative energies, but that’s not the point. Did you miss the preceding paragraphs?

The spending by the government is still north of $30 million in 2017. That's not giving up. That's spending the tax payer's dollars more responsibly... something that's difficult for the progressive socialists to grasp.

 

[AM64]

Seriously, what are the correct boundary years.

The terminal boundary has to be the current latest agreed upon data.

The initial boundary is the one you disagree with.

So all of the 20th century plus 16 or so years of this one aren't enough. 116 yrs.

How about since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution in the middle of the 18th century? Say 1750, so that gives us 267 yrs.

Not enough? How about 1659? The English Midlands

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/03/weather.features11

..."the Central England Temperature series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from 1659."...358 yrs.

OR we could do it by epoch. You know thousands of years. What makes sense? Since the Big Bang? Since the earth formed? Since life appeared?

HOW ABOUT since mankind appeared? That was about 200,000 years ago.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/did-humans-first-appear-earth-8532777bfa42e5d0

Since the earth has already had a few glacial and warm periods, it would make sense to include the cyclic nature of things. The ramp up in a sine wave could look pretty alarmingly like a spectacular trend if you fail to consider the cyclical nature, and that means the measurement has to do with the period (multiples actually) - not a snapshot. Before determining that the climate is a one way ride orchestrated by man; it would make sense to first clearly understand what reversed previous trends. That would imply considering a lot more than a couple of hundred years.

 

[LouderVol]

It is leveling out, as you put it. That’s why they have overcapacity problems. It’s also one of the main reasons our coal industry is suffering. Coal companies bet on growth that didn’t materialize. Global demand over the last few years has been lower than anticipated.

The United States is still in the Paris Accord for at least 4 more years. We can still take part in the working groups that iron out details of the implementation of the agreement. Of course, we have forfeited much of our influence since we’re on the way out already. But there really is nothing to renegotiate; the US can choose to rejoin/stay in this voluntary agreement or not. We could stay in the PCA and alter our voluntary commitment. Saying you want to “re-negotiate” the Paris Accord is nothing more than a delay tactic. It’s taken decades of diplomacy to get to this point and there is literally nothing in the framework of the agreement to renegotiate. If we want other countries to work with us, all we have to do is grow up and take this issue seriously.

those last two sentences clash. There is nothing negotiable but we have to be part of it so they will work with us?

 

[InVOLuntary]

those last two sentences clash. There is nothing negotiable but we have to be part of it so they will work with us?

All the Paris accord was is a club in which the US predominantly funded. They ain't mad that we out. They mad because they ain't gettin' our money.

 

[Carl Pickens]

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Peer review is an important process in every major field of science. Yes there can be limitations, such as a bias in small journals. If they are truly worried about that then they have the option of submitting to the journal of their choosing. The point of peer review isn't to decide whether they like the results or not, it's to decide if the author came to their conclusion on good basis.

You are essentially saying "Science that other experts in the field and non experts have reviewed should not be trusted because of the risk of a bias". Instead you want people to just publish whatever the hell they want. That is how bad science becomes disseminated.

Peer review with biased peers worrying about losing their funding??????........ yeah

 

[Carl Pickens]

You’ve got ‘em now!

Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming -
The best efforts to undermine the established climate science behind the Endangerment Finding are pathetically bad

The article pretty much sums it up. Before continuing, I must point out once again how easily the resident climate deniers flip flop between “The earth is warming, but humans are not responsible” and “the earth is not warming” (and occasionally later stages of climate denial). The same people holding up this paper claiming no warming will be touting “natural cycles” again before you know it. Such logical consistency...

Anyway, did you check the source?

Craig Idso – educated in geography, has worked for Peabody coal in various capacities since 2001 (among numerous ties to fossil fuel industries). Climate denial literally runs in his family.

Joe D’aleo – an evangelical meteorologist who believes “Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

I’ve never heard of the third guy, but he has a background in economics and engineering, and appears to only write sham “studies” like this with D’aleo for the infamous Heartland Institute and CATO Institute. None of these people have relevant expertise and none of them publish in peer reviewed scientific journals (as Michael Bastach and the Daily Caller would mislead you to believe). This is not a scientific study; it’s a wordpress blog citing other blogs and sham papers like this.

Frankly, the whole premise of this article is stupid and we’ve been over these “adjustments” numerous times. First of all, as the article points out, the net effect of the adjustments made by NOAA and NASA reduces the long term temperature trend. Second of all, these aren’t the only global surface temperature datasets; there are several, and all of them agree. Even the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which was funded by the Koch brothers and led by a former climate change doubter, found that NOAA and NASA agreed with their results. And again, as the article points out, there are numerous indicators of climate change besides direct temperature measurements (receding glaciers, rising sea levels, decreasing snowpack, changing seasons, etc) including the satellite temperature measurements that ‘skeptics’, including the authors of this “study”, love to reference. Speaking of...

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

Check out that last figure (won’t link correctly). Every adjustment has made the UAH satellite temperatures trend warmer. Such scandal!

Satellite temperature data, leaned on by climate change doubters, revised sharply upward

And it looks like it’s time for Spencer and Cristy to adjust their dataset once again. I wonder what SandVol thinks of all this

In fact my favorite part of this new “study” is where it shows that the surface and satellite temperatures largely agree while stating otherwise. Lmfao go look at their Figure VI-1. The trends are nearly identical, they just fit surface temperatures with a straight line and satellite temperatures with a step function. Did any of you actually read this? The whole thing is incredibly amateurish, even by climate denier standards. I’m legitimately embarrassed for you.

Please please please let the legion of Bannon challenge the endangerment finding with this trash. Get this willful ignorance out in the open. If this is Pruitt’s idea of a red team I’m all for it. It would be a futile exercise and complete waste of taxpayer money, but the entertainment value would be priceless.

The world is ending ..... we're all gonna die

 

[Grand Vol]

Hey Bart, off subject, but tell your sis I like her "This Day in Space" thing she's doing for Space.com

 

[Orangedogsrule]

I won't requote all Bart's post. But I take issue with the broad brush stroke painting all conservatives as climate change deniers.
That is false.