Mark Cochrane: Climate Change, Revisited

Archives Public Archives
,
61

Shamelessness use of a crash course term, "Fuzzy Numbers" are not just in financial stats.
The earth temperature (to be more accurate temperature anomaly) is measured in basically 3 ways. Surface temp stations, satellites, and weather balloons. Satellites must be adjusted to compensate for various things like change in orbit and new satellites etc. Surface temp records are also adjusted to account for station location changes, urban heat island effect UHI, time of day recording and new technology. Since the 1950's millions of weather balloons have been released. Up until about 2000 all three records more or less agreed with each other. Since about 2000 the surface temp record has diverged from the other two.

Satellites measure troposphere temp for most of the earth excluding the poles. Central to all climate models is the water vapor feed back and all agree the effects of global warming should first be seen in the troposphere. It has not been found on satellite or weather balloon data.  This is a major fail of climate models and cannot be under stated.

The surface temp record is adjusted constantly. Much of the earth has no temperature record and computer models are used to impute the data. Remember even in 2013 with IPCC AR5 there was still a pause and 1998 was the warmest year. That has been adjusted away.

You can certainly argue the validity of the adjustments but you cannot argue that at least half the reported warming over the last 100 years is from adjustments to the raw data. Graph below from Tony Heller for US stations. If we look at raw data for USA it was actually warmer in the 1930's than now.

Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That) first got into this area when he realized most of the US weather stations were none compliant and at least half severally so.  Weather stations located near heat vents or on tarmac or near concrete walls etc was the norm not the exception. Much more to this and I suggest anyone interested start with his recent paper on IUH effect. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/

 

2016-01-12-06-46-13

 

 

screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-8-24-35-am

 

 

 

62

There evidently are quite a few serious scientists who question the Global Warming dogma. I looked up a few on wikdipedia and if anybody says these are paid shills that's just ridiculous. Guys like Freeman Dyson! There's lots of others, Serious dudes who know physics, math, climate, etc. and they laugh at the notion they're paid shills. Of course, they may be wrong, but they're at least honestly wrong.
Having said that, and I'm sure this will piss off somebody:

I'm totally in favor of a massive green energy push, just because coal is a huge polluter (mercury, particulates, etc.) and coal mining destroys ecosystems. I don't even like fracking. I don't need global warming to be a clean and green supporter. I just don't want to breath crap and get toxified.

Renewables can get quite cost competitive with fossil fuel power & one man's cost is another man's revenue anyway. They can be net job creators, I bet. Public policy can remove the cost burden from lower income customers too. If we can help get renewables down in cost and prove it with working electrical systems using solar/wind/tidal/etc., then India and China will have better options for their systems as they develop.

At any rate, people don't want science, they want religion. Even scientists. What's that quip from I think Max Planck – Physics progresses funeral by funeral.

Global warming may be happening exactly as mainstream science alleges, but I doubt it. 

63

What sometimes (usually) gets lost in the debate are these self-evident truths:

  1. Fossil fuels are finite
  2. We can build alternative energy solutions in such a way that they are massively economically favorable (e.g. the long-term savings from proper insulation far outweigh the upfront costs).
For whatever reason there are people who cling to the idea that humans do not live in a world of limits and will vigorously defend against Climate Change, for example, simply so that they don't have to confront a false belief system.

I guess.

Or maybe this;

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

     ~ Upton Sinclair

Otherwise I cannot account for the vigorous opposition to obvious, economically sound, job creating solutions.  But still, to this day, when I scan my environs I see probably 99.8% of roof tops without solar hot water on them, even though the technology and benefits were proven decades ago.

To the extent that people use the AGW debate, such as it is, as some sort of an excuse to do nothing it is a complete shame.

Even if we leave the AGW debate entirely aside, it still makes no sense to be sailing towards 9 billion souls on the planet in 2050 without a plan for how we're going to dramatically refashion our food growing and distribution systems to account for the fact that currently somewhere between 10 and 20 calories of fossil fuel energy are contained within each actual food calorie.

But combine the two ideas, both of which have possible catastrophic outcomes (at least for humans), then the opposition to 'doing something' because the 'science isn't settled' (when it will only ever be settled via rear-view mirror) becomes a wildly immature, short-sighted, non-adult position to take.

In other words, if we can already 'do something' and those 'somethings' (such as the insulation example above) will give us more jobs, better economic outcomes, save money, reduce and conserve resources for future generations while possibly providing us a higher quality of life in the here and now, BUT WE HAVE TO FIGHT PEOPLE to get those things done…then I have to wonder about what it really is that we are up against here.

Because it isn't logic.  That's for sure.  And it isn't data.  And it isn't economics.  

It's beliefs…or very selfish and narrow self-interest, neither of which are conducive to long-range planning and such people maybe shouldn't be afforded an equal position at the planning table.  It would be like collapsing at Burning Man and having the fully outfitted paramedic have to come to consensus with one of your fellow ravers about what sort of treatment to administer before they could proceed.

Let the ravers rave, but also let the people with the necessary experience and training do what they need to do as well.

Or something like that.

64

Mother Culture.

 

She whispers strong in our ears a siren's song of humanity's superiority over the earth, and all within it. Most of our thought processes are founded on that song, in fact. Our entire civilizational world view, and every religion contained therein, is based on it. To refute the song Mother Culture sings to us every day in a thousand ways is to deny our divinely ordained rightful place of dominance, and to acknowledge that, no, the world was not created for us an our offspring to rule over as we wish, is to commit heresy towards the civilizational world-view we have inherited for over 10 millennia.

 

So, yeah, there's going to be kickback. People don't like foundational paradigms, world-views and religions being challenged, myself included. Sure, I revel in it when I find myself squirming in discomfort by facing down my own faulty paradigms nowadays - my recent missteps here on PP being a good example - but that wasn't always true.

 

I fear we may find out what will happen to humanity once gorilla is gone, long before enough people begin to even ask that question.

 

65

I agree with John in urging Chris to have Jo Nova as a guest (or someone similar). She is married to Dr David Evans, a Stanford PhD in fourier analysis, and former leading carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office. Her blog is very good.  Both of them were believers until they thoroughly researched the science.

I tend to have more trust in skeptical climate scientists and environmentalists that started out as believers and changed their minds (like I did) after a long hard look at the data. Another good choice to interview could be Jim Steel, who is an California environmentalist who wrote a book  called Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalists Journey to Climate Skepticism.

As an avid environmentalist, I see many real and serious environmental issues that do deserve our attention and activism.

(Note that my screen name is similar to John H, but I am a different person).

 

 

 
66

I would love to have some practical guidance for solar thermal systems.  We live in an area where there are occasional freezes during the winter…
I am also interested in solar heating of a tank of water that would sit in the middle of a large green house to keep temps above freezing during the winter.

Someone, sorry, can't remember who, recommended this system from amazon.com for use in Texas.

https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Duda-Solar-Pressurized-Evacuated/dp/B00HP84GT6/ref=pd_sbs_86_6?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00HP84GT6&pd_rd_r=9CQP3CFX0PBSWMJ4TBMM&pd_rd_w=H1GzG&pd_rd_wg=IsbDU&psc=1&refRID=9CQP3CFX0PBSWMJ4TBMM

So additional practical advice on this topic would be appreciated.

 

 

67

>> guidance for solar thermal systems
This site would be worth browsing:

http://www.builditsolar.com/

I promise, you'll get all sorts of ideas!

68

There are 3 primary reasons for everyone to prefer the satellite data. First, the measurements are global, excepting the ice covered poles. Second, they are not subject to urban heat island effects. Accuracy is not really an issue. If the temperature data from all of the various collections were presented with honest error bars, their differences would be minor. (Anyone who thinks that we can measure a global temperature to 0.5C is delusional.)

The third reason is a sad one. The surface measurements are open to tampering in ways that the satellite data are not. When you can read in the climategate emails a discussion about how nice it would be to eliminate the warm arctic temperatures around 1940 and then find that they have been removed, (first chart below)  it is difficult to escape the conclusion that some climate scientists have their thumbs on the scales. Further, as pointed out by JohnH in #60 on this thread, the raw data average of USHCN sites used by NOAA shows no trend until after adjustment. As shown on the second chart below, almost all of the USHCN global warming since 1910 is a result of adjustments to data. On the third chart below, it is shown that the GISS additional corrections since 1999 account for nearly all of the warming shown in their land based records for the U.S.

It is sad that GISS simply cannot be trusted. The directors of GISS are climate modelers who have been alarmist from the start. That is how they get their money. They should never have been in a position to influence data alterations. Honest science would put the modelers and the data collectors under different supervision.

 

695×511 24.9 KB

69

Perhaps some of those who gave 6 thumbs up to Chipshot's post are not old enough to understand that the term "denier" arose in the context of idiots who denied that Hitler caused the death of about six million Jews during WWII. To say that those who do not share your beliefs about climate are as reprehensible as the deniers of the holocaust is a monstrous insult. It is usually intended to cut off discussion without having to give reasons for your beliefs. It is sad to see such a point of view met with so much approval on PP, but fortunately it is also rare.
Stan

70

I would just add to Stan Robertson.
Weather balloon data correlates nicely with satellite temps which also makes me tend to believe the Sat over surface temp. Having said that NCEP is likely the best surface temp and lest tampered with and I have no trouble using it as well. It really does not matter which temp record you use as none of it comes close to that predicted by models that would provide some empirical evidence to validate the theory of AGW. The empirical evidence is just not there. I would disagree with Chipshot in that I do not see an"overwhelming preponderance of evidence"

Also to Stan Robertson right on re "Denier".

I would also point out that "Alarmist" is derogatory.

 

71

"Better to live as though anthropogenic global warming were true, and be wrong than live as though anthropogenic global warming were wrong, and be wrong?"
I kinda like pursuing a low hydrocarbon footprint. Did a last fall garden cultivation with Suffolk Draft power.

72
Another great solar link:

http://www.susdesign.com/overhang/

It's a calculator to find the optimum size for your eaves versus the size/position of your windows, so they get full sun in the winter months but are shaded in summer. You could use it for deciding on awning sizes, too.

 
 
73

Replying to C. Martenson, 12/1, 12:39 pm.
 

So true. I totally agree with your perspective on all that.

 

The podcasts are always very entertaining, informative and thought provoking. Whether I agree or disagree with everything said, it doesn't matter. I always listen and learn something.

I'd echo the requests in this thread to invite a serious global warming skeptic and let us hear their side of things. Even if it's discussion of Fourier series, nuances of temperature data and math-stats, in fact ESPECIALLY if it's that! We can handle it. It would be very interesting to hear a non-mainstream perspective from an informed scientist.

74

I could go on and on about the deficits of the US educational system, but I'll just post today's assault on science courtesy of CNN.
This one is subtle, … or is it?

Here's the article I stumbled across:

(Source) 

I did mark that image up with the text in the box…but did not alter anything else.

My purpose here, of course, is not to make any sort of a statement on people's need for miracles, but to comment on the obvious lack of critical thinking skills it takes to note the statue but not the foundation right behind it.

Now if that were a wooden statue…

But seriously, without critical thinking skills it's very hard to manage one's way around the major events of our times.  Climate change being one, 9/11 another, the curious timing of the Ukraine Maidan 'protests' etc.

The mainstream media is counting on us being ill-informed and context free, and they reinforce it whenever possible.  Our job is to reject those efforts, derive our own well-informed content and context so that we can decide for ourselves what makes sense and what we should value and do.

 

75

I've always thought that a miracle was a retrospective observation of an unexpected, extraordinary event. Does that make Mr. Trump's election win and the FED's QE program miracles? Is the world passing me by or am I just going in the wrong direction?

76

Standing still can also feel like you’re moving backwards. At this point, in the flux of all we discuss on PP, I would be delighted just to stand still for awhile.:smiling_face:

77

[quote=Rector]

I’m not saying ACC doesn’t exist.  I’m saying that we cannot stop it.[/quote]

That's EXACTLY what fossil fuel corps want us to think. They have even hired people to spread this message on the internet.

78

John, I have my doubts that you believe anything you've written on this comment thread.  That said, I'd like to give you a chance to defend yourself.
There's an easy way to determine whether you actually believe any of this climate denier bunk.  I'd like to propose a simple wager.  Our oldest global temperature records - those based on actual measurements - go back to the 1880s.  If our climate isn't warming, then the odds that any one particular year would be the warmest on record would be approximately 1 in 125.  (The exact odds would depend on the data set.)

At the turn of the century, 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded. 2005 broke 1998's high temperature record. 2010 broke 2005's record.  2014 broke 2010's record.  2015 broke 2014's record.  As things stand today, 2015 is the hottest year ever recorded.

I propose a wager.  I'm willing to bet that 2016 tops 2015 as the hottest year ever recorded.  As a climate denier, you should be willing to bet that 2016 will not be the hottest year ever recorded.  After all, if the climate isn't warming, then the odds are hugely in your favor.

I'll leave it to you to pick the data set - NASA, NOAA, JMA, Hadley Centre - and the amount you'd like to wager.  I'm not wealthy, so I'd prefer not to go over $1,000 U.S.  Actually, let's make that $10,000 U.S.

What do you say, John?  You bemoaned the fact that people who understand the science wouldn't debate based on the data.  I'm willing to go one step further.  I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.  Surely you're willing to do the same …

 

79

I do agree, likely 2016 will be the "hottest year on record" especially considering this was a massive El Nino year.
Correlation is not causation.

It has been warming at more or less the same rate for the last few hundred years since the end of the little ice age. Graph 1 below the last 135 years. It is not disputed that CO2 increase in the atmosphere could not have had significant effect on Temp until after 1950. Yet you see a warming from 1910 to 1940 then a cooling, thus the 1970 ice age scare and then another approximately equivalent warming from 1970 to 2000. Since 2000 the temp by all data sets had been relatively flat. The IPCC report n 2014 acknowledges this pause. Thus any "warmest year on record" was only be hundredths of a degree. In your post you noted 2005 was hotter than 1998 but that only became true after last years "Pause Buster" study. The most recent Temp Graphs  are different due to adjustments especially since last years "pause buster" study by Tom Karl where it turned out the temp at the water intake of ships is more accurate than floating buoys made for that purpose ( I kind you not). Point is no one knows what caused the warming from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970 but some how the warming from 1970 to present is known for sure to be climate change or AGW. Since we have been in a warming phase of which at least half is nature for the last 125 years then your 1/125 odds are meaningless. If it has been warming the last 125 years thus of course record hot years are more likely in recent years.

Of course CO2 is a green house gas and I agree with the science in that increased CO2 should cause warming but the details are important. Most people don't realize the majority of predicted warming is from feed back loops in particular water vapor. The earth heats up leading to water evaporation into the atmosphere where it traps more heat etc. Central to this theory is about 10 km up a tropical hot spot and increase in water vapor. Empirical evidence, that is data collected from weather balloons, satellites have  failed to find it, this non existing hot spot is absolutely central to the feed back theory. Read the IPCC and current papers, the climate sensitivity continues to come down over time. There is back peddling going on behind the scenes. The models all predict much more warming than we have now.

So no I would not take you bet that 2016 will be the warmest on record considering it is almost over and the data certainly suggest that is the case. I would however bet you 2017 will not be the warmest year. I will however be fair and suggest that may not be a good bet for you considering 2017 is looking to be a La Nina year.

Also if someone were to ask me about the warmest year on record, I would respond first by asking, which record. As you can see from the ice core records in graph 2  it has been warmer than today for most of the last 10,000 years. So when you connect the warmest year on record with climate change you are connecting causation and correlation. Empirical evidence is what is needed to validate the theory and empirical evidence is sorrily missing. Empirical evidence is not glaciers receding, hurricanes, droughts, or wild fires.  I don't know if it will get warmer or cooler over the next 10 or 100 years, no one does. I do think CO2 as likely caused some warming.  I do know the the models have been a massive fail. CO2 levels have almost doubled and according to the models it should be a lot warmer. Like a blanket over the earth there should be trapped heat. No one can seem to find it.  The models are wrong. No matter which data set you use they are wrong. We are looking at spending up to 100 trillion dollars world wide in the next 85 years to mitigate climate change based on models that are wrong. Could just 1 trillion dollars bring Africa out of poverty, cure cancer, house the homeless, or pay down national debts? Denying power to poor nations is subjecting those people to continued poverty and early deaths  Global warming/climate change has been around for over 30 years now and no single proposal, agreement, or reduction scheme has so far made any difference.  Even countries that went heavily into renewable are now cancelling subsides, like Germany building coal plants. Renewable are proving to be too expensive and still require full conventional back up. What is going to stop 2400 coal power plants. Trump is planning to go big on energy. There is a "denier" to be appointment head of the EPA. African counties want what we have. Our wealth came from fossil fuels. CO2 emissions are continuing to go up. Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise at a steady pace. It only slows down for recessions. We have already passed the supposed 400 ppm tipping point. There continues to be new discoveries of large deposits of oil. All I can says is we all better hope skeptics are right because I can pretty much guarantee government schemes have not and will not significantly reduce emissions. Renewables AKA wind and solar are diffuse and intermittent power sources. If we were really serious about climate change we should be building concentrated and reliable energy sources like nuclear and hydro dams like mad, . Until better storage comes along wind and solar are not up to the task. Local roof top solar can help a little but the big power uses are industry, buildings, hospitals etc.

New technology, the Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan has found a way to remove CO2 from the stake of a coal plant turning it into added value products. Though it just proves concept it looks promising and affordable. I have read of other similar promising technologies as well. Time will tell. New coal plants are getting more and more efficient every year and new super critical ones may one day soon emit less CO2 than natural gas generation. These plants already element almost all other pollutants.  These are worth investing research dollars into. 

 If you force not ready for prime time technology like wind and solar onto people then you are going to get what you got. If wind and solar were reliable and affordable then there would not be 2400 coal plants under construction.

About me

I have  university doctorate degree. I am now in my 60's and live on a sustainable farm.My favorite PP podcast was the two vegetable farmers (it was a couple and cannot remember their names right now) in California who's practices I am trying to incorporate more and more into my farm. For fun I read stuff and got into reading about climate change about 3 years ago.   I have read 1000's (really no idea how many)  of research reports and papers. I can tell you there is a lot of bad science out there. After a while you get a nose for it.  Lots of reasons like getting grants, publish or parish, conformational bias. I know the scientific process. One of my favorite scientists is Richard Feynman.  "the first thing about science is not to fool yourself and your the easiest person to fool"

With regard to climate change the scientific process has gone off the rails. Why would 30,000 scientists including many Ph.D.'s, noble winners etc go out of their way to seek out and sign the Oregon petition. I suspect many of them see what I do. The right climate stuff. A large group of retired NASA engineers who are concerned NASA's good name is being smeared by bad science.

My journey starting with reading the climate gate e mails. You will soon understand that the whole climate change theory stands up supported by feet made up of a very few scientist, maybe a dozen or so. The rest of climate science assumes this information coming from GISS, NOAA, HADCRUT is well done and true. Read those e mails, see conformational bias, ends justify the means, controlling the peer review process, adjusting data, hiding data, poor handing and storage of data, erasing  e mails, and refusing to release data. The vast majority of climate scientist are honest true hard working but their work depends on this work being correct and it is easier to get grants if your work relates to "climate change" . I suspect a lot of scientist know there is a problem but just choose to say nothing for a number of reasons. Anyway read those e mails and see what kind of people we are dealing with, it actually is shocking. If you don't have a scientific background it is easier to read book written by a someone who does.ie http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

After that I became a bit obsessed for w while and learned everything I could.

 

Graph 1

Image result for global temperature data

 

 

 

Graph 2

Greenland temperatures, GISP, ice cores, Holocene era.

80

John, I'm not sure how it's possible for someone to get so many things wrong in one post.  If I can find the time tomorrow, I'll go through and point them out.  
In the meantime, I'd suggest that you stay away from WUWT.