What do you think of climate change?

[Metis1]

Cherry-picking the data to try and support one’s position is not in any way scientific. Climate change is not monolithic in regards to effects, and it seems rather bizarre to me that some Catholics are so willing just to blow off “Laudato Si’” and what the scientific advisers have convinced Pope Francis is happening. IMO, it’s another example of some Catholics paying much more attention to partisan-political sources than what’s found in a papal encyclical.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You can either support your position or you can’t, and pleas that you don’t need to because your opponent isn’t an expert are a bit hollow.

If they are not an expert than chances are that they made a mistake that would invalidate what they say so it makes sense and is a valid objection.

 

[Ender]

If they are not an expert than chances are that they made a mistake that would invalidate what they say so it makes sense and is a valid objection.

No, it’s really not. Most of what is discussed about global warming doesn’t require significant technical expertise to critique, and I think that can be demonstrated. Pick a topic and we’ll see just how much expertise is required to reasonably discuss it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

VanitasVanitatum:

If they are not an expert than chances are that they made a mistake that would invalidate what they say so it makes sense and is a valid objection.

No, it’s really not. Most of what is discussed about global warming doesn’t require significant technical expertise to critique, and I think that can be demonstrated. Pick a topic and we’ll see just how much expertise is required to reasonably discuss it.

This is an appeal to pride. The fact is I don’t know how to explain the much-maligned surface temperature homogenization, and I doubt that anyone here can explain it either. One may present an argument that looks convincing to the layman, but that doesn’t mean it is really valid. I use the term “homogenization” because that is the term the experts use. It even applies to oft-touted satellite measurements, like the kind from the noted climate skeptic Roy Spencer and his group at U of A. But the uninitiated call it “modifying the raw data”. In fact some say satellite measurements are subject to more extensive homogenization than surface temperature readings.

 

[Ender]

The fact is I don’t know how to explain the much-maligned surface temperature homogenization, and I doubt that anyone here can explain it either.

The first thing to note regarding NOAA’s homogenization is that no one outside of NOAA (NCDC) can explain it because they are the only ones with access to the algorithms and code that modify it. That alone is a valid complaint. Expertise is an irrelevancy; even experts can’t judge what was done.

Second, the graph produced by Tony Heller of the temperature modifications versus the actual measurements is almost surely valid. The data are publicly available. Again, that doesn’t prove the modifications are invalid, but it is a strong argument against them.

Finally, the modifications not only continue up to the present, but continue to diverge further from the actual, which is another somewhat inexplicable development. Why are measurements getting worse instead of better as one would reasonably expect?

What does NOAA offer as an explanation? “Trust us.”

This is not proof if for no other reason than proof is not possible. It is, however, justification for doubt.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The fact is I don’t know how to explain the much-maligned surface temperature homogenization, and I doubt that anyone here can explain it either.

The first thing to note regarding NOAA’s homogenization is that no one outside of NOAA (NCDC) can explain it because they are the only ones with access to the algorithms and code that modify it.

I don’t think that is true. But if you want to talk about accessible algorithms, the algorithms that Roy Spencer uses to homogenize the readings from the various satellites over time no more accessible.

Second, the graph produced by Tony Heller of the temperature modifications versus the actual measurements is almost surely valid. The data are publicly available. Again, that doesn’t prove the modifications are invalid, but it is a strong argument against them.

No, it is suggestive to suggestible minds only. For those who understand what homogenization means it is not any kind of argument, weak or strong.

Finally, the modifications not only continue up to the present, but continue to diverge further from the actual, which is another somewhat inexplicable development.

Again the appeal to what seems inexplicable. Many things seem inexplicable that are not, as you can see on Penn and Teller Fool Us.

Why are measurements getting worse instead of better as one would reasonably expect?

A question is not an argument. It may be the suggestion of an argument, but it would be better if the implicit were made explicit. If a premise of the implied argument is that homogenization would imply measurements are getting worse, I would attack the premise. But doing so now before you have stated it would leave me open to “I never said that.”

What does NOAA offer as an explanation? “Trust us.”

That depends on who “us” is. If it the general public, then yes. A more technical explication is not possible. If it is other scientists, I suspect the published works are a suitable explanation.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think that is true.

Would it matter (that no one outside of NOAA has access to their algorithms)? If it was true would it change your perception?

But if you want to talk about accessible algorithms, the algorithms that Roy Spencer uses to homogenize the readings from the various satellites over time no more accessible.

First, I think you’re guessing about this, and second, it doesn’t matter. Either NOAA’s algorithms are available to other scientists or not. Nothing about Spencer’s algorithms changes that.

No, it is suggestive to suggestible minds only. For those who understand what homogenization means it is not any kind of argument, weak or strong.

Are you saying Heller’s graph is false, or that it doesn’t matter even if it’s true?

Again the appeal to what seems inexplicable.

Again the reliance on absolute proof which does not exist. The evidence is circumstantial, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence. “You can’t prove them wrong” is not much of a defense, especially if you reject virtually everything presented to make a case. We’re not dealing with slight-of-hand tricks here.

A question is not an argument.

Geez…given the significance of the question, access to the most modern technology as well as an astonishing level of government funding, adjustments to temperature readings ought to be getting smaller over time. Instead they are diverging. This suggests a serious problem either with the temperature stations themselves, or with the adjustments being made to the readings they produce.

That depends on who “us” is. If it the general public, then yes. A more technical explication is not possible. If it is other scientists, I suspect the published works are a suitable explanation.

This is an opinion unsubstantiated by anything at all. If in fact it is NOAA alone who has access to the algorithms then not only the public but every scientist around the globe is simply accepting the changes on faith.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t think that is true.

Would it matter (that no one outside of NOAA has access to their algorithms)? If it was true would it change your perception?

Yes, only if the lack of access to such algorithms was acknowledged by the majority of reputable climate scientists. At present, I don’t think that percentage has exceeded 1%.

But if you want to talk about accessible algorithms, the algorithms that Roy Spencer uses to homogenize the readings from the various satellites over time no more accessible.

First, I think you’re guessing about this…

Guessing about what? That there are complex homogenizations to satellite data? Or that the algorithms are in just as “inaccessible” as those of surface temperatures? I can assure you I am not guessing about the former. And the later is true only because both types of algorithms are accessible to those who follow the subject professional. That I am guessing about because I see no reason to assume otherwise, Tony Heller notwithstanding.

. and second, it doesn’t matter. Either NOAA’s algorithms are available to other scientists or not. Nothing about Spencer’s algorithms changes that.

That is true for this specific debate, but just keep it in mind in case the debate between the two systems of measurement ever is revisited.

No, it is suggestive to suggestible minds only. For those who understand what homogenization means it is not any kind of argument, weak or strong.

Are you saying Heller’s graph is false, or that it doesn’t matter even if it’s true?

The latter.

Again the appeal to what seems inexplicable.

Again the reliance on absolute proof which does not exist. The evidence is circumstantial, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence.

It is circumstantial only to the extend that the awareness of these facts might increase the interest in how the homogenization is done in the mind of climate scientists, so they would examine the algorithms more closely than they would if the results of the homogenization was exactly as expected. However the evidence is not justification for the layman to seriously doubt the science behind it.

“You can’t prove them wrong” is not much of a defense…

That would be true if I were the one making the initial claim. As I recall the prior claim was from you that unjustified homogenizations are taking place. In that case it is not a matter of me saying “You can’t prove them wrong” as much as it is you saying “You cannot prove my accusation wrong.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A question is not an argument.

Geez…given the significance of the question, access to the most modern technology as well as an astonishing level of government funding, adjustments to temperature readings ought to be getting smaller over time.

The adjustments you speak of are not for the purpose of finding a more accurate absolute measure of the temperature. They are for finding a measure that is most comparable to earlier measurements so that an accurate trend can be established. That is why the better term is not “adjustments” but “homogenization”.

That depends on who “us” is. If it the general public, then yes. A more technical explication is not possible. If it is other scientists, I suspect the published works are a suitable explanation.

This is an opinion unsubstantiated by anything at all. If in fact it is NOAA alone who has access to the algorithms then not only the public but every scientist around the globe is simply accepting the changes on faith.

As I said at the top of this top, the premise of you “if” statement needs to be established first.

 

[Ender]

The adjustments you speak of are not for the purpose of finding a more accurate absolute measure of the temperature. They are for finding a measure that is most comparable to earlier measurements so that an accurate trend can be established. That is why the better term is not “adjustments” but “homogenization”.

(I think I know exactly how Charlie Brown feels when he prepares to kick the football Lucy is holding…but I’m going to take a run at this just the same.)

Your claim can’t be accurate. If later measurement are being adjusted to approximate the conditions of earlier measurements, what are the earlier measurements being adjusted to approximate? I can’t conceive of a less rational way to proceed, as nothing could be considered “right”. If new is pegged to old, and old gets modified then everything would have to be recalculated. If, however, temperatures were adjusted to “true” then nothing in the historical record would depend on modern measurements, and modern data would not have to change simply because the old data was recalculated.

Where did you read this? This just seems incredible to me.

 

[MamaJewel]

Has anyone studied whether climatic events are only meteorological? I still question if the climate fluxes we see are 1) geologically related and 2) ocean-pollution related.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If later measurement are being adjusted to approximate the conditions of earlier measurements, what are the earlier measurements being adjusted to approximate?

I am not an expert in long time series data homogenization. All I know is what the experts have written about it. I think the assumption that the adjustments are to approximate conditions of earlier measurements is too simplistic. From what I have read, the adjustments are made to combine a variety of measurements and measurement methods to correct for system errors, even when those system errors cannot be specifically identified. For example, if two data sets cover overlapping periods of time, they can be combined to cover the total period only if the overlapping data is consistent. If it is not, one or the other should be changed. It is not a trivial process. The fact that neither you nor I can explain the technical details of homogenization does not mean it was done without justification.

 

[Ender]

The fact that neither you nor I can explain the technical details of homogenization does not mean it was done without justification.

This is surely true, but it also seems true that changes which cannot be reviewed for accuracy by other scientists, and always move in the direction to support a particular theory, should at least be viewed as suspect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The fact that neither you nor I can explain the technical details of homogenization does not mean it was done without justification.

This is surely true, but it also seems true that changes which cannot be reviewed for accuracy by other scientists, and always move in the direction to support a particular theory, should at least be viewed as suspect.

How do you know the part I bolded is true?

 

[Ender]

How do you know the part I bolded is true?

I don’t. I read it somewhere and am trying to verify it. The question is: would it matter to you if it was true? Would it make any difference to your position regarding the changes?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

How do you know the part I bolded is true?

I don’t. I read it somewhere and am trying to verify it. The question is: would it matter to you if it was true? Would it make any difference to your position regarding the changes?

Yes, if a significant number of scientists were complaining that they could not verify the validity of the homogenizations of long-term surface measurements, I would be worried that NOAA was hiding something significant.

 

[jeannetherese]

HI Leaf,
I’ve been reading along, and so many of the discussions seem to revolve around how one determines information and arguments to be credible.
What, do you think, might be thought of as a significant number of scientists?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh, let’s say 10% of all climate scientists.

 

[jeannetherese]

And how does one determine who is considered to be a climate scientist?

 

[Ender]

Yes, if a significant number of scientists were complaining that they could not verify the validity of the homogenizations of long-term surface measurements, I would be worried that NOAA was hiding something significant.

I’ll make these citations as I find them.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/21/homogenization-of-temperature-data-by-the-bureau-of-meteorology/

The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network–Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) Technical Advisory Forum released a report in 2015 confirming that the Surface Air Temperatures were being adjusted, confirming the process is called Homogenization, confirming that other weather monitoring institutions around the world are making these same adjustments and purporting to justify why the adjustments are being made. Observing practices change, thermometers change, stations move from one location to another and new weather stations are installed . They refused to release their complex mathematical formula used to make the adjustments. They claim that homogenisation is essential in eliminating artificial non-climate systematic errors in temperature observations .

My observation of all of this is that these so called reasons for making these adjustments are not reasons but excuses.