Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2017's global temperatures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    It is becoming laughable to pretend the world is not warming ... and warming significantly.
    Up until a year or so ago, the "no warming since..." crowd was still very vocal. And if the recent pattern of temperature change - huge spikes upwards followed by relative stasis for a decade or more - continues, then i wouldn't be surprised to see them return in about 7-8 years. In the mean time, i expect "the climate's always changing" to predominate.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      It is becoming laughable to pretend the world is not warming ... and warming significantly.

      Jim
      I consider it the Three Monkeys tragic, and not laughable. It is like a bad back it hurts when I laugh.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        Up until a year or so ago, the "no warming since..." crowd was still very vocal. And if the recent pattern of temperature change - huge spikes upwards followed by relative stasis for a decade or more - continues, then i wouldn't be surprised to see them return in about 7-8 years. In the mean time, i expect "the climate's always changing" to predominate.
        IIRC the cause of the 'hiatus' was heat tranfer to the oceans. No reason to believe that sort of bounce/rebound would not be cyclical.

        A question. Is ocean life more sensitive to temerpature change than land life forms? It would seem likely in that ocean temperatures are much more stable and have a much smaller range of variation, which I would expect to produce less reason to evolve a high range of temperature tolerance. But over time, an X degree shift in temperature on land would also become an X degree shift in ocean temperature (it would just lag the land shift).

        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          IIRC the cause of the 'hiatus' was heat tranfer to the oceans. No reason to believe that sort of bounce/rebound would not be cyclical.
          That's one of the influences identified, yes.

          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          A question. Is ocean life more sensitive to temerpature change than land life forms? It would seem likely in that ocean temperatures are much more stable and have a much smaller range of variation, which I would expect to produce less reason to evolve a high range of temperature tolerance. But over time, an X degree shift in temperature on land would also become an X degree shift in ocean temperature (it would just lag the land shift).
          As in many of these things, the answer is "it depends." The ocean is actually facing a triple-hit, as the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere mean more is dissolving into the oceans. That lowers the efficiency of the exchange of CO2 for O2 at the gills of ocean animals, which will place some species with high demands under metabolic stress. It also lowers the pH of the water (a phenomenon called ocean acidification), which harms animals that base their skeletons on calcium carbonate. Plus there are the rising temperatures you mentioned.

          Combined, these will produce winners and losers. Sea grasses don't have skeletons, can generally tolerate higher temperatures, and their photosynthesis will benefit from easier access to CO2. Corals make skeletons and lose key symbiotic creatures if the temperatures get too high (that's coral bleaching). Fish would be harmed by the acidification and maybe the temperature, but would probably benefit from the higher productivity if they graze on sea grass. So at an ecosystem level, where all these species facing different impacts interact, things get really complicated really fast. In a lot of cases, all we're able to say at this point is "things will change."
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            We've had threads on tis in the past. Nobody's started one this time around, so I figured I would.

            Yesterday, NASA and NOAA released their analysis of the global temperatures in 2017. This was an interesting year, since it was first one after a strong El Nińo, which has pushed temperatures up to a very dramatic record for two years in a row. Temperatures would be expected to drop, but the question was: by how much? Back to the temperatures typical of the early part of the decade? Or just down a little bit to near-record territory?

            The answer is the latter. NASA and NOAA place 2017 as the 2nd and 3rd warmest year on record, respectively. The differences come from whether the analysis uses the most up-to-date source data, and how it handles regions like the poles, where data is sparse compared to elsewhere. In either case, it's clear 2017 is roughly the same as 2015, which was an El Nińo year and set a dramatic new record just two years ago.

            Berkeley Earth, which uses a completely different analytic approach, agrees and produced a nice graphic showing how 2017 is different from everything on record other than the last two years.

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]26021[/ATTACH]

            Another way to analyze this is to remove the effect of the El Nińo. We have enough historic examples of how El Nińo/La Nińa strength correlates with global temperatures, and can use these to subtract the effect from the temperature data. That's been done with NASA/NOAA, and the results show that, when this adjustment is made, 2017 is actually the warmest year on record.

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]26022[/ATTACH]

            Over time, as the earth continues to warm, this will start to look like a "normal" year. But for now, it's clear that the last few years stand apart from anything anyone alive today has seen.
            I've been meaning to ask for a while - why are they using mean and not median? And the follow up, how is it adjusted?
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              I've been meaning to ask for a while - why are they using mean and not median? And the follow up, how is it adjusted?
              The median would not be representative of the uneven variation over time, because it simple the middle value of the range of the temperatures. The mean is the average values which more reflects a set where the numbers are not evenly distributed.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                I've been meaning to ask for a while - why are they using mean and not median? And the follow up, how is it adjusted?
                Because the mean is just a more relevant statistic when it comes to temperature. There are tens of thousands of temperature sites integrated into the global data set, and they're not evenly distributed - there's a lot more in the warm places that are easy to get to than there are in say, the Antarctic. So the median value wouldn't give an actual picture of what the global temperature is up to. Instead, they give a geographically weighted mean, which provides a clearer picture.

                As for the follow up, how is what adjusted? The final temperature figure?
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Because the mean is just a more relevant statistic when it comes to temperature. There are tens of thousands of temperature sites integrated into the global data set, and they're not evenly distributed - there's a lot more in the warm places that are easy to get to than there are in say, the Antarctic. So the median value wouldn't give an actual picture of what the global temperature is up to. Instead, they give a geographically weighted mean, which provides a clearer picture.

                  As for the follow up, how is what adjusted? The final temperature figure?
                  Actually, you answered it already - I knew a straight mean would be the stupidest possible measure so it had to be weighted somehow - don't ask why I said 'adjusted' instead of 'weighted' - I'm pleading brain cramp on that one.

                  Thanks!
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    The raw data is adjusted. TOB, heat island effect, wild point editing, and so on. So it is not fair to say the results come solely from 'unaltered data'. From my studies, those adjustments make sense, are valI'd and even necessay to get an accurate result. And further, they don't change the general trend. That is, the averaged raw unadjusted data shows basically the same result. But those that have their doubts will see deception in the way you characterise the results relationship to the raw data.
                    Adjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone. Of course these "adjustments" aren't immediately obvious if you don't have access to past archives, and you will only have access to those if you had the foresight, or luck, to hang onto them since NOAA et al make past data archives unavailable to the public.

                    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/...t-any-further/
                    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Adjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone. Of course these "adjustments" aren't immediately obvious if you don't have access to past archives, and you will only have access to those if you had the foresight, or luck, to hang onto them since NOAA et al make past data archives unavailable to the public.
                      Relying on Anthony "never met a fossil fuel company donation I didn't like" Watts for accurate climate change information is like relying on the 3 Stooges for plumbing advice.

                      SMEdit_CurlyinPipes_PlumbingTTS-046-010web.jpg

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Adjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone. Of course these "adjustments" aren't immediately obvious if you don't have access to past archives, and you will only have access to those if you had the foresight, or luck, to hang onto them since NOAA et al make past data archives unavailable to the public.

                        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/...t-any-further/
                        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ering-exposed/
                        Not reliable sources.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          Relying on Anthony "never met a fossil fuel company donation I didn't like" Watts for accurate climate change information is like relying on the 3 Stooges for plumbing advice.

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]26792[/ATTACH]

                          The data is the data. I would be surprised if this fellow made up the 'old' datasets. The question would be what was the rationale behind the changes, and why are they justified. Watts et al assume they are all nefarious, which is where they wonder off into the weeds. But there is nothing good that can come from not being transparent about what the alterations are, and by not retaining public access to the original raw data. There is no good reason that can be uttered that will make that look anything but suspicious and they were stupid to stop offering the raw data.

                          disk space and bandwidth are very cheap these days.


                          Jim
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Adjusting for things like heat island effects, etc. in current data is generally not controversial (assuming the specific adjustments are objective and justifiable). The problem comes when NOAA et al start tampering with past data which should be set in stone.
                            Three things about this:

                            All data is past. How do you define "present" in this context?

                            Past data should not be set in stone. You're basically demanding that, if we identify any problems with past data, we keep using it instead of fixing the problems. It makes no sense.

                            Berkeley Earth did an analysis that eliminated the adjustment process involved in how NASA and NOAA handle the problems with past data. It produced a statistically indistinguishable result.



                            As far as the raw past data being available: that's actually an annoying result of contract law. Lots of the weather data from other countries is sold as a product by their meteorological services. Those weather services get to set the terms for what's done with the data; NASA and NOAA have to agree to those terms if they want to use it. The end result is that it's not NASA and NOAA's decision as to whether the original data should be handed out. The data they do control is made public.

                            This is not to say it's a positive thing. I think all the data should be made public. Just explaining why it isn't (and more or less blaming the lawyers).
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              ...
                              Past data should not be set in stone. You're basically demanding that, if we identify any problems with past data, we keep using it instead of fixing the problems. It makes no sense.

                              .....
                              You lost me here - if the raw data is corrupted you (general - here until designated otherwise) can't 'fix' it. You either recorded the data correctly or you didn't.

                              While I'd grant the need to correct demonstrable transcription errors, you're still dealing with the original data set (which is less of an issue in the last twenty years). If you're using older data sets (which should be the case for long term studies) then just how many times can you read the thing without noticing errors - it seems absurd to have gross errors (San Francisco 1/17/1894 250F) still being located in such data sets.

                              I'd guess by 'past' data he means 'old' data. To me, that's data ten years old or more (which is why I really don't see why anyone should be needing to fix data sets in use that long.)

                              Given the huge advances in computer technology, it's hard to understand where the issues would lie in the data sets? Recording and transcription errors should be minimized - I get having trouble reading Dr Bob's notes from 1955 (probably best to just track down his secretary and let her do it ) but modern computers can read thermometers just fine.

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                You lost me here - if the raw data is corrupted you (general - here until designated otherwise) can't 'fix' it. You either recorded the data correctly or you didn't.

                                While I'd grant the need to correct demonstrable transcription errors, you're still dealing with the original data set (which is less of an issue in the last twenty years). If you're using older data sets (which should be the case for long term studies) then just how many times can you read the thing without noticing errors - it seems absurd to have gross errors (San Francisco 1/17/1894 250F) still being located in such data sets.

                                I'd guess by 'past' data he means 'old' data. To me, that's data ten years old or more (which is why I really don't see why anyone should be needing to fix data sets in use that long.)

                                Given the huge advances in computer technology, it's hard to understand where the issues would lie in the data sets? Recording and transcription errors should be minimized - I get having trouble reading Dr Bob's notes from 1955 (probably best to just track down his secretary and let her do it ) but modern computers can read thermometers just fine.

                                It's actually not that odd. As science progresses, we find ways to better model differences between equipment types, equipment locations, etc. Yes - there is a possibility that the new models also have error. But you either do the best you can with the data you have, or you throw up your hands and say, "gee - we didn't have today's instruments back then."

                                The current trend towards discounting the adjustments made to past data rest on the assumption that climatologists are complicit in this vast conspiracy to defraud everyone by skewing data to make the statement they want it to make. While some scientists have done this (there are bad eggs in any group), most have not. Most are honestly trying to determine a) what is happening, b) what has happened, c) what it means, d) and what we might be able to do about it.

                                Meanwhile, just as the lead industry and cigarette industry did before them, the fossil fuels industry is throwing as much smoke in the air as they can because their business model is under threat. The sugar industry is doing the same thing.

                                It pattern is predictable...and a little sad.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X