Climate Change data may need revision.

[xelasnave]

The apparent hiatus in temp rise may be incorrect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150917110002.htm

[el_draco]

Dangerous topic.... Facts get in the way of vested self interest. Best not persist me thinks... :rolleyes:

[Shiraz]

I hope you can keep this one focused on the science Alex - it is interesting research, even though the linked article may have a rather misleading and inflammatory heading.

My understanding is that the paper is not saying that all of the temp data needs revision - there seems to be no doubt that there has been a long period with no significant air warming. What this and other studies are showing is that our response should probably be "so what" - the various global heat transfer systems are highly variable and a couple of decades with no increase is entirely consistent with the underlying dynamics. ie the flattening off in the air temperature data is a temporary fluctuation and not a statistically significant indicator that global warming has stopped. Is that how others read it?

Unfortunately, it will be all too easy for some to dismiss this research as self serving revisionism, even though it actually looks to be a significant improvement in data analysis methods.

[xelasnave]

Hi Rom and Ray
It's really about the science of data analysis.
I don't think climate science would be shelved because of the hiatus.
Nevertheless we can see data analysis is a rather complex matter.
I am happy this research seems not to have created any disputes I certainly have not seen any on the places I frequent.

[xelasnave]

The post title could be different but I was thinking carefully sand my choice was to move away from what could be a worse reaction.
And a way to get folks to read about the complexity of data analysis.

[xelasnave]

It all started when goggling to support an argument against the saying lie,damn lies and statistics.
Anyhow try this link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality
Statistical analysis is more complex than most consider...unless you are in that profession.

[andyc]

Putting my climate scientist hat on - it's more a case that there never was a "hiatus", and this has been clear to many of us for two reasons:

1: there has never been a statistically significant change in the rate of surface temperature rise. Sure, you can butcher an illusion of a short-term reduction in trend (ie from strongly positive to less strongly positive) by starting at the largest El Nino on record and ending in neutral or La Nina years over too short a timeframe, but you're always measuring the noise rather than the signal. 2014, 2015 and almost certainly 2016 are giving the lie to this as the residuals about the trend return towards neutral or positive values, pushing surface temperatures far into record territory.

2: over 90% of global warming energy goes into the oceans, while only 2% goes into surface temperatures (where the short-term "hiatus" appears predominantly in the December to February period). The oceans didn't stop warming, in fact their warming continued to accelerate substantially in the past 17 years just as we'd expect as the forcing has continued to increase. Any "hiatus" was in a tiny fraction of the total GW energy increase, and total global warming accelerated rather than slowed.

Sadly there are some for whom the idea of magnifying an illusion that global warming had stopped was appealing. And some scientists in doing valuable work to explain the recent noise variations in the surface temperature record helped inadvertently to propagate the idea that the "hiatus" was substantially more than just noise in 2% of the global warming signal. But to their credit, we have learned a huge amount about detailed energy flows and workings of different parts of the ocean-atmosphere system as a result of this work. Much of it isn't terribly comforting, but at least we have a greater understanding of the system than we did.

The data revisions in question refer to correct baselining of disparate oceanographic datasets, and were the subject of papers prior to this one. We prefer better processing of data to poor processing, such as ensuring that different types of oceanographic or surface measurements are calibrated properly to the same baselines. And just in case anyone's unsure - the sum total of data adjustments for the surface temperature record reduce the overall trend compared to unadjusted data.

[andyc]

Hey Alex, I wonder if you've seen this post by Grant Foster (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/right-and-wrong/)? It seems that the paper in question here (Rajaratnam et al 2015) has some pretty serious errors in it, and may very well be a case of "right, but for the wrong reasons". It's possibly not entirely helpful to the progression of analysing climate data.

Foster's an expert in time-series analysis who published on variable stars with the AAVSO, and has more recently published a fair bit about time-series analysis of global climate data (notably Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 as well as a good book about the relevant stats). A classic post from 2009 called "Riddle me this" (http://web.archive.org/web/20100104072651/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/) explored simply what happened if you plotted the trend from 1979 to the 1998 outlier, the steepest significant trend in the data ... then extrapolated this trend line through the more recent data to the [then present] 2009. No "pause" at all, and the same result occurs with data to the present day! More recent relevant posts may be Slowdown Skeptic (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/), or Is earth's temperature about to soar? (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/)

[xelasnave]

Hi Andy thanks for your input.
I have been on your links for over a hour and only half way thru the first, if that.
I don't go into climate science, I have a link someplace on the physics which gives a credible overview and to my mind it would seem the damage has already been done.
I have no concerns really as it is my belief no actions will change on the part of humans even in the face of immediate destruction.

There are so many coal fired plants in China and India already and more planned for the future. They won't be shut down.
More coal mines are being sort and opened and the most positive government response is to tax consumption.
That is hardly a serious response is it.
And all are happy to consumer in excess race cars, boats, planes etc with no concern.
And it's all good for business so why stop.
So I don't care.
I see another mass extinction but I don't care because caring places you in a very small minority and rated as a nutter.
My latest interest is statistics which I really do enjoy.
Sure they can be played with to support a point of view and folk point that out as if in doing so destroys any virtue the gathering of statistics can do.
I happen to believe one can use statistical trends well and profitably.
If more people are buying x and you see a continuing trend maybe it's time to go onto business supplying x. If costs of producing x are rising maybe sell that business rather than trying to work with falling profit.
I hope the spelling errors are few. I am on my done with fat fingers and miss stuff...and I am up in the hills so my not be able to correct..storm coming so reception may be lost.
Thanks again for the links I do enjoy the posts where various views are presented on any matter really.
Alrx

[Eratosthenes]

....the bulk of the historical release of human made CO2 still resides in Western nations. (about 2/3 of the Carbon emissions are attributable to about 14 western nations)

It gets even worse on a per capita basis.

The USA for example consumes about 1/3 of the world's resources and generates almost 30% of the global pollution and yet only makes up about 5% of the global population.

Australia has consistently been ranked in the top 3 Carbon emitters per capita and overall ranked in the top 20 for NET carbon emissions. I believe Australia has recently taken over the mantle of the world's biggest Carbon emitter on per capita basis, becoming even worse than Canada and the USA.

In defense of China, who's per capita emission is about 1/4 of Australia's, a huge chunk of their it's have been driven by its global manufacturing role - ie producing goods for western consumption.

The problem as it sits at the moment is one of access and distribution of wealth and resources.

A simple calculation shows that a hypothetical world comprising of 800 million US citizens has the same effect on Global warming rates as almost 5 billion Chinese?

How can we, as people morally and ethically justify this distortion is responsibility and causality without abandoning the simplest of principles - the Principle of universality?

Book of Eratosthenes [12:37] :D

[xelasnave]

I was tempted to rant about the usa.
I dislike greed I dislike excessive consumption etc
The point I should have made for the consumption of coal in China and India was is it is not unreasonable for them to follow a coal energy solution. To a certain degree they have little choice.
Or another way to put it is it will be hard to change the desire of developing economies to have a fraction of the energy used by developed nations.
Bottom line for me is humans are not going to change consumption. It will only get worse. Pointing out we are changing the climate won't change a thing.
Do scientists really think quantifying the problem will change human behaviour.
Turn on the tv next sunday and check out drift racing and the v8 super cars..do you think humans who crave that entertainment will change to loving a good foot race.

[xelasnave]

I sit here under a 15 watt light run from a 100 amp hr battery charged by a 85 watt solar panel with 200 acres of forrest outside, tank water and no frig...my phone used little power.
If it gets too hot I will move into the cave and eat mushrooms.
I am sick of all the bleating someone do something besides me.

[Visionary]

Ok.... what really gets my goat is that every hot day is cited as proof of Global warming, yet every cold day is ignored. This winter has seen Sydney with a cold wet winter, nil comment. If Sydney had a hot, dry winter then the press would run wild. Please dont think of this as a denial of climate change. Its just aq simple observation that hot days sell papers, cold days dont sell papers. For example the start to this years ski season was awful, the awful start was blamed on climate change. Once the snows started falling and continued falling there was never again mention of climate change. Climate change sells!

[bugeater]

While I can't say I've seen this phenomena (but then I actively avoid anything that might confuse weather with climate), I think it will depend on which news outlet you are exposed to.

[xelasnave]

It is easy to be cynical. But we must avoid it and focus on the reality.

The scientists do their best whilst everyone else use their findings for whatever reason suits their purpose.
Nuclear power is now the proposed saviour of man kind.
For or against if you wish you can make climate change your living..books talks t shirts , but who is doing something.
The science is used for profit not to fix anything not the fault of the scientist their papers are great to get a new tax going but change consumption, no no we need endless growth and greater needless consumption.
All those dedicated folk just get used.
Our culture glorifies bigger more luxurious and extreme consumption.
Live for today tomorrow never comes.

[bugeater]

Actually energy consumption is dropping quite noticeably in the US. I think the last peak was pre-financial crisis, so 7 years ago or so.
Partially it is due to its economic issues, but energy efficiency has also played a big role. Lower carbon emitting energy sources are also becoming much more prevalent there. They are building more renewables and closing down coal generation. The prevailing view is the US will never build another coal fired power station.
An American quoted Churchill to me the other day "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

The story still isn't great, but it isn't one of ever increasing (energy) consumption.

[xelasnave]

I hope you are right Marty but some stats or a link would be good.
I don't doubt your belief but I would find it a surprise that they have changed their habits.
I will look into it.

[bugeater]

The US energy information administration (EIA) is full of cool data including energy consumption.

Another cool data set I came across was installed solar generation in Australia. The growth has been amazing over the last few years. I think the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) may have published that one.

[Eratosthenes]

Your ecological footprint is gentle and sustainable....

The proponents of Corporate capitalism and infinite economic growth, are very disappointed in you lifestyle Alex.

The casino stock markets are appalled at your behaviour Alex.

I think that you owe Gina Reinhhart a sincere and written public apology
:D

[Dave2042]

Would you mind giving us a few links to where climate scientists (as opposed to political types making political points) are doing this?

[xelasnave]

Peter
I am lucky so much so I feel I should apologise to every other human for monopolising lifes blessings.
I enjoy a freedom like no one else and dark clear skys as well.
That's why I have devoted myself to saving humans one at a time.
Now what can you teach me about statistics I am thirsty for knowledge.

[xelasnave]

Thank you Marty I missed your last post and have been driving all day.
I will check it out.
Back in the Sydney rat race.
My house here is in a well to do suburb and all around have lights burning and even air conditioners blazing.
So I am going to have a fire outside and boil a cuppa.
It's raining but I am having one for sure.

[Eratosthenes]

Statistics isn't exactly my area (either professionally or hobby wise)

The non deterministic stochastic illusion, whilst useful in some areas of science, sociology and mathematics, does however underpin much of the deranged lunacy of Quantum Mechanics.

I believe I have made my views on the pathetic and synthetic basis of QM abundantly clear in this forum. The discipline of Physics should be utterly ashamed of itself for trying to hoodwink the general public and for fraudulantly fabricating its under graduate Physics programs in Universities all around the world.

Unless you are seeking some assistance on Normal/Gaussian distributions or some "t" test, I dont think I can be of much help.

In any case, do you need statistical theory to operate your Telescope or to individually save humans??
:D

[xelasnave]

I want to win money on the horses.
No not really.
I meet with a friend and chat.
I just want to know a little.
Anyhow I have read enough I feel.

[sjastro]

It's ironic the microprocessor design of your computer is the technological outcome of the deranged lunacy of Quantum Electrodynamics that allows you to type and transmit ill informed comments.



What's abundantly clear is that you don't know what your "talking" about.

In this very thread (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=138860) you initiated, the LHC, the particle detector designs and the experiment itself are all based on Quantum Mechanics.
Strange how such a "pathetic" and "synthetic" theory can lead to the production of particles and antiparticles.

Here is a question for you. The resolution of detail in a microscope depends on the wavelength of light used. The shorter the wavelength the greater the detail.
Microscopes using soft x-rays resolve more detail than visible light. Yet this relationship fails for even shorter wavelengths in the hard x-ray and gamma-ray range.
Why is this so?

Here is a hint, the answer lies in the probabilistic nature of Quantum mechanics as one goes to increasingly high energy photons.

[Eratosthenes]

...are you interested in theoretical or applied statistics?

One reference which I have used in the past is "Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists" (Walpole, Myers...)

It has a good balance of theory and practice and is also available online for free as a .pdf file (I paid quite a bit for my hard copy many moons ago)

http://folk.ntnu.no/jenswerg/40CEFd01.pdf

[xelasnave]

My friend says repeatedly
"there are lies, damn lies and statistics"
I point out that such a statement fails to recognise the science.
Moreover that a short, what was a political presentation, failed to recognise the work of the mathematicians who developed the science and failed to indicate the benefits the science of statistic delivered to humanity.
I had hoped to enlighten him, part of my saving one human at a time dedication.
However I conclude he has made his short statement a belief and as such I doubt anything I point out will cause him to change his belief that statistics is not even a science.
So I conclude that it does not matter how much I learn it will not benefit me to change his somewhat simple belief.
And for myself I know a little and question my desire to know more. I find in my answer no need to go further and realise that to bring myself up to speed would require years which would be a waste inn so far it would do nothing to educate him.
He upsets me as he tends to be dismissive of many things without having first developed more than a casual understanding.
I posted the reference to the science daily article because I was going to show it to him.
He believed climate change is real and I thought the article may change his dismissive approach to statistics in view that the science of statistics now have his belief support. The suggestion of a hiatus does not rest well with him.
Anyways I can not now show him this thread given all I have said.
We will meet and chat but I will tolerate his throwaway lines because I really am not responsible for his beliefs not should I want to change them.
The moral of my experience is ...
You can not defeat belief armed only with facts.

[bugeater]

I did some pretty advanced stats about 10 years ago (I started a Master of Statistics), but can't remember much detail. I did theory of statistics, stochastic calculus and forecasting, amongst other units.

Statistics is a fascinating area. A good place to start is to understand just what statistical tests and statistical distributions mean. Which then helps with understanding just what statistical significance means. Understand what a normal distribution is and why it is so widely applicable (the central limit theorem is interesting here).

At the end of the day I think if you view things through a stochastic rather than a deterministic lens, you'll understand the world better.

[Dave2042]

We're all waiting for your alternative theory that works.

[xelasnave]

Yes but as you know Dave what is required is a theory that not only works but is better than the theory being replaced and preferably a theory that builds upon the body of work to date.

GR was a better theory but it didn't, on my understanding throw out Newton or Galileo equivalence.

Peter may I also ask a question?

Is there something that specifically you see as wrong and which you have the correct answer.
I am curious as to why you are so passionate in your position.

[xelasnave]

Or
An unsupported attack may or indeed will be seen by most as somewhat personal.
Steven is a most tolerate man who I have found very supportive even when I was exploring non mainstream views so I am concerned you upset him and others with your seemingly unsupported attacks.

[xelasnave]

And it seems you ignore Steven in so far as you do not answer his questions.
Do you ignore him and if so would you explain this behaviour to those of us who find such not very nice.

[Dave2042]

You know, I'd even be prepared to take seriously a theory that was only just as good as QM.

The fact is that the crowd who hate the 'indeterminacy' of QM have never been able to put up a coherent alternative that corresponds to how the universe seems to work.

Their point always seems to wind up looking like a simple insistence that the universe shouldn't work that way because they don't like it.

[eddiedunlop]

But isn't this the same with everything David? It's more a case of 'bad news sells'.

[Eratosthenes]

who is Steven?

I don't and cant read every post in here - just the posts that catch my eye.

Who is "us" that you refer to? Are you part of a gang in here Alex?

What are you on about Alex?:confused2:

[xelasnave]

I withdraw my enquirey.

[xelasnave]

I withdraw my enquiry also

[xelasnave]

Same here.

[Eratosthenes]

Now I am even more perplexed...

I suppose it cant be as bad as making sense of QM hey Alex?

:D

[xelasnave]

In all probability in principle I am uncertain but we chose to except the benefits that models give us in terms of usable goodies.
Things just are, objects people institutions even religions we often make the choice in our observation to also attempt to qualify what we personally observe and as humans we will say something is good or bad, it is right or wrong so as to fit our observation conveniently and acceptably into our personal reality and in that attempt we lose sight and recognition that our personal attempt at qualification is useful in any way other than allowing us to accept or reject a greater external reality of which we can only remain ignorant about nevertheless we are personally satisfied our personal observation and personal qualification is a reliable and somewhat concrete reality which of corset it can not be and so to observe and qualify anything is somewhat isles because all we are then working with is only an assembly of determinations from an unrecognised assembly of probabilities that moreover we have not considered in the attempt to truthfully qualify from observation and of course we can only do this from a human perspective wherein we invariably fail to take into account the limits being human places upon reasonable observation must limited by matters we fail to consider unless perhaps pointed put after our attempt such as our limitation on regions that are observable to us without additional equipment and here the electromagnetic spectrum comes to mind and our limited ability to observe it to it's full extent but if we recognise the limitations of our ability to qualify reality we are struck with a possibility that probability and the accompanying alternative realities perhaps provide a closer look at what may be reality and of course more importantly what may not be reality.
Does that mean we can include what we chose to include in our personal reality by tossing a coin to surname the inclusion or exclusion

[xelasnave]

Unfortunately we are using a fone which changed words to ones different to those that I think I have typed but this curiously parallels the principle I am trying to demonstrate.
The probability that the meaning of my paragraphs have been corrupted must now be recognised therefore in trying to understand my meaning the only helpful took is to work with probability as you may well ask did he they mean what he they or it said as written before me or was that word in probability mean something different which most often it may well have so both the author me us have presented.
So to attempt to include qualification in your personal observation without recognition of probability leaves us behind where we started trying to look forward when we haven't covered the ground behind us.
And all this tells us very little about the universe other than there is a probability that it exists.

[xelasnave]

I am sorry that not having a decent keyboard prevents me fro dealing with this matter in greater depth but I am sure my simple explanation hints at the greater underlying complexity without detracting from the basic principles as outlined.
If your frustration with QM still persists it is probably because you may be strip irony to it a complexity which does not have to exist not indeed exists because simply put things just are and after that point it is our qualifications that add an I.necessary later of complexity.
Or as is always a fair summation put it a light yesterday...when the sun sets in the saucer of milk the cat will song to the cucwho clock

[xelasnave]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/