What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That’s not arguing like a scientist. That is appealing to authority, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But that is I have constantly hounded to stop doing. So I have to stop doing that, so should you.

It appears you have difficulty separating the “significant research” from the “done by CERN.”

Separating it from what?

If @Theo520 was presenting the research and what follows from it coming from the researchers at CERN, that does not mean he is “appealing to authority.”

Actually, I agree. I objected to that citation for a different reason. I objected because the conclusions stated explicitly in the CERN research did not disprove that man is causing global warming. That leap of logic is, I guess, what you refer to by the phrase “what follows from it” above. Try stating explicitly what you think “follows from it” and we will see if we can argue it like scientists.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

That’s not arguing like a scientist. That is appealing to authority, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But that is I have constantly hounded to stop doing. So I have to stop doing that, so should you.

It appears you have difficulty separating the “significant research” from the “done by CERN.”

Separating it from what?

If @Theo520 was presenting the research and what follows from it coming from the researchers at CERN, that does not mean he is “appealing to authority.”

Actually, I agree. I objected to that citation for a different reason. I objected because the conclusions stated explicitly in the CERN research did not disprove that man is causing global warming. That leap of logic is, I guess, what you refer to by the phrase “what follows from it” above. Try stating explicitly what you think “follows from it” and we will see if we can argue it like scientists.

I’ll let @Theo520 argue that point since it isn’t one that I brought up nor am I familiar with it. I will present a different one, in a while, to “argue like scientists.”

 

[Theo520]

Actually, I agree. I objected to that citation for a different reason. I objected because the conclusions stated explicitly in the CERN research did not disprove that man is causing global warming.

You are making up strawmen again, rather than engaging on what I actually post…

I NEVER said the research disproved AGW. I was always explicit that the research indicated we have significant error in model assumptions about warming from feedbacks. CERN itself only states the research indicates a lower climate sensitivity.

 

[thursday63]

www.realclimatescience.com

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s argue like scientists, then, shall we?

This is the case that Tony Heller presents in this video against the NASA temperature record, also dealing with the supposed answers to his objections from Berkeley’s Zeke Hausfather.

Let’s see if you can deal with evidence and not merely dismiss Heller on some specious appeal to authority claim.

Since you aren’t interested in viewing the video to witness, first hand, his evidence, I have done screen captures to summarize his argument.

First, here is the 1999 US Temperature record provided by NASA in 1999.
It shows very little warming since 1880 and a slight cooling trend since about 1930.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is the updated US Temperature record provided by NASA in 2019. It shows a distinct warming trend of over 1°C since 1880.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is the US Maximum temperature record from NOAA that also shows about 1.3°C warming over the past century.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

However, when the raw temperature data from all active networks stations in the US are averaged, there is a distinct cooling trend during the same period.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So what gives? Zeke Hausfather explains the discrepancy with the following argument…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So, to address Hausfather’s two points, one at a time, Heller makes the following rebuttals:

Point 1
Hausfather: Absolute temperatures are only valid when the station network remains the same, so when stations are dropped and added, that creates unreliability in the record due to differences such as elevation and average temperatures that don’t reflect consistent data.

In response, Heller takes the proper approach and instead of using anomalies he merely selects from all the network stations those that have existed the entire time from 1880 to the present. This is the result:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Surprise! Surprise! A cooling trend!

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Point 2

Hausfather: Spatial weighting (aka gridding) is necessary because the network stations tend to be crowded in the east so there isn’t a random and even distribution of stations across the entire area. This causes the denser distribution of stations in some areas to unduly skew the record.

In response, Heller demonstrates a comparison between the gridded and ungridded maximum temperatures together with the trendlines.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There is no substantial difference between them, so Hausfather’s claim that an ungridded distribution substantially skews the record is incorrect.

There is more in the video, but we could start on those two points.

Heller’s conclusion is that NASA and NOAA’s tampering with the data based upon two specious warrants 1) changing makeup of the station network and 2) spatial weighting (gridding) is suspect.

Ultimately, the point is that those two supposed “warrants” for tampering with the data do not amount to good reasons for doing so, which leaves the question of why the data has been tampered with absent any good support. And, furthermore, the raw data showing a cooling trend over the past century is based upon actual and not unwarranted tampering of data, which makes the raw data set the de facto better set.

 

[EndTimes]

To be fair, this isn’t actually evidence

To be fairer … of course it’s evidences …

Of at least so-called climate experts who aren’t quite as expert as they portray themselves as being.

_

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Actually, I agree. I objected to that citation for a different reason. I objected because the conclusions stated explicitly in the CERN research did not disprove that man is causing global warming.

You are making up strawmen again, rather than engaging on what I actually post…

I NEVER said the research disproved AGW. I was always explicit that the research indicated we have significant error in model assumptions about warming from feedbacks. CERN itself only states the research indicates a lower climate sensitivity.

Sorry, I assumed that was implied by the term “significant”. Significant to what? Significant to doubt the conclusions of the model in forecasting future warming? I am quite willing to accept the the CERN report accurately reported on a deviation between the model and certain aspects of reality. The question is, are those deviations significant in the the support of claims about global warming or not? I don’t think the CERN article came to a conclusion about that question because it was not addressing that question. So it may have been my mistake in thinking that you were implying that it did address that question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s argue like scientists, then, shall we?

If we are going to argue like scientists you have to present evidence in the form of primary data - that is data from the scientist or agency that collected that data. Such data, when it is presented in an academic setting always lays out the conditions under which the data was collected, the definitions of the quantities measured, and the conditions that may have affected that data. What you have done is present graphs sans all that explanatory data. So I have no idea how many stations were involved, if later homogenization was done, and on what basis. So you see arguing like a scientist is a messy laborious and painstaking process. You can’t skip it. Pretend you are writing a paper yourself for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and include all the supporting data, including links to primary sources, not someone’s retelling of that data.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Let’s argue like scientists, then, shall we?

If we are going to argue like scientists you have to present evidence in the form of primary data - that is data from the scientist or agency that collected that data. Such data, when it is presented in an academic setting always lays out the conditions under which the data was collected, the definitions of the quantities measured, and the conditions that may have affected that data. What you have done is present graphs sans all that explanatory data. So I have no idea how many stations were involved, if later homogenization was done, and on what basis. So you see arguing like a scientist is a messy laborious and painstaking process. You can’t skip it. Pretend you are writing a paper yourself for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and include all the supporting data, including links to primary sources, not someone’s retelling of that data.

I get it. You don’t want to “argue like a scientist,” you want to “research like a scientist.” Or more accurately, you want me to write a thesis-length post on the subject.

What it appears like to me is that you know that setting the standard at “present[ing] evidence in the form of primary data” is well-nigh impossible for any of us because even locating it and presenting it
in the form required to make a substantial point would take weeks.

Let’s cut to the chase…

Just suppose Heller is completely accurate with his data treatments, are there problems with the NOAA and NASA graphs? Yes or no?

Let’s just start there. Assume the data is correct. Is there a problem? Or can you not even bring yourself to admit that? It just sticks in your craw, so to speak?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Let’s argue like scientists, then, shall we?

If we are going to argue like scientists you have to present evidence in the form of primary data - that is data from the scientist or agency that collected that data. Such data, when it is presented in an academic setting always lays out the conditions under which the data was collected, the definitions of the quantities measured, and the conditions that may have affected that data. What you have done is present graphs sans all that explanatory data. So I have no idea how many stations were involved, if later homogenization was done, and on what basis. So you see arguing like a scientist is a messy laborious and painstaking process. You can’t skip it. Pretend you are writing a paper yourself for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and include all the supporting data, including links to primary sources, not someone’s retelling of that data.

I get it. You don’t want to “argue like a scientist,” you want to “research like a scientist.”

To be clear, it wasn’t my idea to argue like a scientist. I have always maintained that those of us who are not scientists in this field cannot really argue like a scientist, but are better off relying on the authority of experts. But I reluctantly agreed to give it a try because you guys insisted.

Or more accurately, you want me to write a thesis-length post on the subject.

Well, the scientists you are trying to refute have written their thesis-length papers on the subject. Why did you think that you could get away with doing anything less?

What it appears like to me is that you know that setting the standard at “present[ing] evidence in the form of primary data” is well-nigh impossible for any of us because even locating it and presenting it
in the form required to make a substantial point would take weeks.

Exactly my point. Thank you for finally realizing it. So can we all go back to comparing authorities, like I was doing before?

Let’s cut to the chase…

Just suppose Heller is completely accurate with his data treatments, are there problems with the NOAA and NASA graphs? Yes or no?

I can’t say, since I don’t know exactly what those graphs represent since you have not linked to a NASA or NOAA site so I could see them presented by their original authors. I’m sure I would learn more from a link to these sources that Heller is not telling me.

 

[Ender]

Until about 2016 the sea ice extent in Antarctica was increasing, not decreasing, and even with the last four years being substantially below normal,the trend line since 1980 is still above normal. Given that the trend in sea ice extent (Antarctica) is toward more, not less, it appears that global warming just hasn’t migrated very far south just yet. Besides, the sea ice extent seems to be more affected by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) than anything else.

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica has been slowly increasing in area since the satellite record began in 1979. But the rate of increase rose nearly five fold between 2000 and 2014, following the IPO transition to a negative phase in 1999.

The new study finds that when the IPO changes phase, from positive to negative or vice versa, it touches off a chain reaction of climate impacts that may ultimately affect sea ice formation at the bottom of the world. (Watts 2016)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(National Snow and Ice Data Center)

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, the scientists you are trying to refute have written their thesis-length papers on the subject. Why did you think that you could get away with doing anything less?

Implicit appeal to authority on the pretext that you don’t have the capacity (authority) to “argue like a scientist.”

So you were playing at “arguing like a scientist,” holding in your back pocket the “cannot really” card so you could back out when the going got rough.

To be clear, it wasn’t my idea to argue like a scientist.

You held the option open — sort of.

…you have not linked to a NASA or NOAA site…

Suppose those graphs were taken directly off the NOAA and NASA site, would that really make a difference? I doubt it.

Just so you know…
Link: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarm1999/Images/1999_fig3_tn.gif
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Link: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Those two graphs Heller used were directly off the NASA sites.

I can’t say, since I don’t know exactly what those graphs represent since you have not linked to a NASA or NOAA site so I could see them presented by their original authors. I’m sure I would learn more from a link to these sources that Heller is not telling me.

What do you suppose they represent?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, the scientists you are trying to refute have written their thesis-length papers on the subject. Why did you think that you could get away with doing anything less?

Implicit appeal to authority on the pretext that you don’t have the capacity (authority) to “argue like a scientist.”

I don’t understand how that remark addresses the quote of mine that you quoted. It certainly doesn’t address my point which was that requiring primary sources if you are really trying to argue like a scientist is not unreasonable. Perhaps arguing to the same standards to which scientists are held in such a forum as this one is what is really unreasonable.

So you were playing at “arguing like a scientist,” holding in your back pocket the “cannot really” card so you could back out when the going got rough.

The going has not gotten rough because you have yet to start.

To be clear, it wasn’t my idea to argue like a scientist.

You held the option open — sort of.

Nope. I always maintained that non-experts cannot normally argue credibly with experts. But if you want to try, please stick to the standards that scientists have to uphold.

…you have not linked to a NASA or NOAA site…

Suppose those graphs were taken directly off the NOAA and NASA site, would that really make a difference?

Yes, because the NOAA and NASA citation would contain the qualifiers and descriptors that your posting of is lacking. Without those qualifiers I cannot truly interpret the graphs.

Just so you know…
Those two graphs Heller used were directly off the NASA sites.

But they are stripped from their original context. What are you and Heller hiding?

I can’t say, since I don’t know exactly what those graphs represent since you have not linked to a NASA or NOAA site so I could see them presented by their original authors. I’m sure I would learn more from a link to these sources that Heller is not telling me.

What do you suppose they represent?

…is a question that appeared nowhere in any academic paper. The more you refuse to present your argument like a scientist would the more you confirm my hypothesis that such an endeavor in this forum is highly unlikely.

 

[HarryStotle]

But they are stripped from their original context. What are you and Heller hiding?

So, you cannot read a graph directly? Heller isn’t hiding anything, and I linked to the original NASA image. It isn’t my problem that you cannot navigate from there to their “original context.” I assumed you were more adept at technology than you now lead us to believe.

First one Figure 6, p.37

Captioned: Figure 6. Annual and 5 year running-mean surface air temperature (meteorological year,
December-November) for the contiguous 48 United States relative to the 1951-1980 mean.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

Second one here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

Scroll to dropdown on Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States.

Now your turn to present what you find.

Or, alternatively…

What is your next excuse?

 

[HarryStotle]

The more you refuse to present your argument like a scientist would the more you confirm my hypothesis that such an endeavor in this forum is highly unlikely.

The argument, by the way, was “presented” quite clearly.

There is a discrepancy between the 1999 graph and the 2019 graph. Hausfather explained why there is a discrepancy between the raw data (1999) and the adjusted data (2019). The explanation was challenged by Heller as inadequate. You haven’t produced any reason for thinking Hausfather’s explanation is adequate. Instead you hid behind “original data” as if that is even relevant at this point. Why not defend Hausfather with an argument that supports him?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But they are stripped from their original context. What are you and Heller hiding?

So, you cannot read a graph directly?

I can read the numbers on the graph, but without the context I don’t know what those numbers represent. Did the data on the 1999 graph represent the same measurements as the data in the 2019 graph? Did they represent averages of daily highs, or lows, or hour-by-hour averages? I would rather not guess. A scientist who was using these data to make a point would not try to make me guess.

Heller isn’t hiding anything…

I see. I am just supposed to trust him. Very scientific.

First one Figure 6, p.37

Captioned: Figure 6. Annual and 5 year running-mean surface air temperature (meteorological year,
December-November) for the contiguous 48 United States relative to the 1951-1980 mean.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

Second one here:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

Scroll to dropdown on Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States.

Finally! Was that so hard? You should have made this information available 5 posts ago. So what do we see? Yes, here it is, in the second reference we find this:

The corresponding graph in Hansen et al. (1999) shows a smaller trend, since it is based on data that were not yet corrected for station moves and time-of-observation changes, see this FAQ

…continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Continuing:…

If we follow the link to the FAQ mentioned we find:

In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as “adjusted USHCN” data. The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001). A list of all changes to the GISS analysis and their impacts is presented in the History Section .

This in turn points us to two citations that explain station moves and procedural changes. I can see why you were reluctant to make this info available. But I am glad you finally came through. Now you are arguing like scientist. So it looks like we have explanations for the thing that worried you so much. Do you feel better now?

 

[EndTimes]

You keep saying that…

Yet… You’ve ignored the rest of the post by truncating it.

 

[Metis1]

Why not actually look up the peer-reviewed sites like the National Academy of Sciences that is the official source for our government on this, and then maybe follow up with the NASA, NOAA, “Scientific American”, etc., that have already compiled the research and have concluded that we are indeed in an era of global warming that is largely of human cause (higher levels of CO2 and methane gas). Using scientist Joe Schmoe as a source makes so little sense because there are always going to be some scientists who will say darn near anything because of an agenda they may be pushing.