Climate Change data may need revision.

[xelasnave]

The apparent hiatus in temp rise may be incorrect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0917110002.htm

[el_draco (Rom)]

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

[Shiraz (Ray)]

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 (Andy)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The apparent hiatus in temp rise may be incorrect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0917110002.htm

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 (Andy)]

Hey Alex, I wonder if you've seen this post by Grant Foster? 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" 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, or Is earth's 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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

.....There are so many coal fired plants in China and India already and more planned for the future. They won't be shut down.

....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]

[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 (David)]

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 (Marty)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Marty)]

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 (Marty)]

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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by 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!

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