Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Lucas Oliveira » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:55 am

I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:38 am

I'm just home after some time away and I have a lot to catch up on but I figured I waould share this while I remember.
It is entertaining enough (unless you're a denialist, of course) that I encourage you to read the whole thing -
Checkmate: how do climate science deniers' predictions stack up?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-stack-up

:reading:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:17 pm

This is Nature, commenting on work published by the American Meteorological Society. Climate science doesn't get much more authoritative - or mainstream - than that.
Extreme weather explicitly blamed on humans

Basic theory suggests that climate change will lead to more extreme weather, but making the link to individual events is difficult. There was a time when the typical answer was something along the lines of, ‘Perhaps, but it’s hard to say.’ The science has advanced over the past several years, and scientists have identified global warming’s relative contribution to many extreme weather events. Now, for the first time, climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

This kind of confident assertion rarely makes its way into the scientific literature. Yet it appeared in three studies included in a special annual edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) dedicated to attributing the causes of extreme weather events. ...

Extreme weather would be expected from time to time, regardless of global warming. In fact, of the 131 papers investigating extreme events that BAMS has published over the past 6 years, 35% found that global warming played no appreciable part. Nevertheless, the latest results suggest that the climate is entering uncharted territory, and that would mean that weather will increasingly fall outside the historical norm. From this perspective, humanity hasn’t just loaded the dice. We have replaced them with a whole new type that behave in ways we don’t fully understand.

The solution has been clear for more than two decades: governments need to take aggressive action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. By attributing real-world impacts to global warming, scientists are providing citizens and political leaders with further evidence that climate change is a clear and present danger, not a distant threat to future generations.
:reading: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08808-y

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7534
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:11 am

I'm very skeptical about the major assertion of this article. Here we have someone from nature giving their views of what the bottom line is in some published research. It is all to easy for whoever it was at nature to misrepresent the conclusions of the published research.
chownah
edit: I glanced at the article.....it is an EDITORIAL....not surprising.....I couldn't find the authors name so I could not determine their credentials. The last time I checked out a similar situation (questionable claims) it turned out that the author evidently had a bachelor's degree from a social centered liberal arts school which didn't even have a math dept....further investigation showed that the questionable claims came from the author of the article and were not supported in any way by the research being cited. Maybe if I get bored and have nothing pressing to do I might check this out more fully if someone can find who the author is.....and read the entire article.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:36 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:11 am
I'm very skeptical about the major assertion of this article. Here we have someone from nature giving their views of what the bottom line is in some published research. It is all to easy for whoever it was at nature to misrepresent the conclusions of the published research.
chownah
edit: I glanced at the article.....it is an EDITORIAL....not surprising.....I couldn't find the authors name so I could not determine their credentials. The last time I checked out a similar situation (questionable claims) it turned out that the author evidently had a bachelor's degree from a social centered liberal arts school which didn't even have a math dept....further investigation showed that the questionable claims came from the author of the article and were not supported in any way by the research being cited. Maybe if I get bored and have nothing pressing to do I might check this out more fully if someone can find who the author is.....and read the entire article.
chownah
Go ahead if you like, Chownah, but I don't think you will find that it lacks foundations. In the first place, Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal) is so widely respected because it so rarely gets things wrong. In the second, the editorial is basically summarising material from the American Meteorological Society (itself well respected) and summarising doesn't take a lot of specific expertise.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7534
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:25 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:36 am
, the editorial is basically summarising material from the American Meteorological Society (itself well respected) and summarising doesn't take a lot of specific expertise.
It doesn't take alot of expertise it is true.....but it also throws the door wide open for spin doctoring.....here is the assertion I am most skeptical of:
climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
I will really have to see how the meteoroligical journal articles said this. I have never read a credible journal article that said something was "outright impossible".

Also, while this next little bit tries to paint those articles as being "confident".....
This kind of confident assertion rarely makes its way into the scientific literature.
it actually leads someone who is familiar with science journal literature to wonder why it was never asserted before and if perhaps the articles in question have perhaps overstated their results or that the editorial writer has exaggerated the impications of their results.

Add to this that the editorial writer seems to not be named for credential checking. DO YOU KNOW the name of the person who wrote the editorial?

I'm saying I am very skeptical. I am not a babe in the woods inre these sorts of issues. My instincts very often turn out to be well founded. I am not a nay sayer.....it just looks very fishy to me....I'll be glad to find that my skepticism is ungrounded but until I see some evidence it will remain.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:48 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:11 am
I'm very skeptical about the major assertion of this article.
What do you take as the major assertion of this editorial? (It's in the editorial section)
Mine is:
governments need to take aggressive action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
The author takes some aggressive and creative leaps in reasoning to get there. This could be blamed on the restrictive length limits the magazine/journal often imposes.

There are a number of journals and publications that come out under the "Nature" banner. This article appears to be from their classic 'flagship' journal of general science as a editorial. Because it's a journal trying to cover all sciences there are often tight length restrictions. It's almost impossible to get a report of a failed replication published in Nature. While getting a publication in one of those journals is prestigious arguably the best papers tend to be published in the specialty journals.
Nature is so widely respected because it so rarely gets things wrong.
Snicker. This is an editorial. Even for the main journal I think they are more like the rest of us mere mortals.
Peer review is more a sanity check. In that same issue in the "World View" section features "Peer reviewers need more nurturing". The more rigorous test comes in their Corrigenda section, comments elsewhere and ultimately in follow up research.
----------------------------
chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:25 am
....here is the assertion I am most skeptical of:
climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
I will really have to see how the meteoroligical journal articles said this. I have never read a credible journal article that said something was "outright impossible".
I agree. This is another example of where universal quantifier ("impossible") is used in a place of a more measured qualification. Also, the phrase "outright impossible" ought to trip everyone's rhetoric alarm ... "it's outright outrageous!".
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:15 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:48 am
Snicker. This is an editorial. Even for the main journal I think they are more like the rest of us mere mortals. Peer review is more a sanity check. The more rigorous test comes in their Corrigenda section, comments elsewhere and ultimately in follow up research.
Don't just sneer, then - show us the errors.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7534
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:23 pm

I have only a few minutes available to use this computer so I'll report briefly.

I went to the three articles mentioned in the Nature editorial article where the editorial author (still have not been able to find the author's name) made the statement:
climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
......and what I have found is that the Summary (which acts like a "Conclusion") in each of the three does contain a statement which is consistent with the editorial author's claims...I was surprised to find that my intuition was wrong this time. Anyone interested can go to the Nature editorial through the link presented above and then use the links contained therein to access the three articles and read themand report their observations if they wish.

Tomorrow I'll post again with more details and perhaps some observations of my own if I have any observations which I think are worth sharing.....which is likely.....
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:28 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:15 pm
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:48 am
Snicker. This is an editorial. Even for the main journal I think they are more like the rest of us mere mortals. Peer review is more a sanity check. The more rigorous test comes in their Corrigenda section, comments elsewhere and ultimately in follow up research.
Don't just sneer, then - show us the errors.
Kim, you quoted my comments out of context. Yes? My comments were in context of the notion that "Nature ... so rarely gets things wrong."
QUESTION: But when you ask "show us the errors" do you mean give you a list of errors made by Nature? Again, what context are you working in here?

Also, speaking in the context of "errors" -- I count your response as an error.
------------------------------------------------------

Best practice for new research and claims, especially for novel results, is to hold it lightly for a time and wait for critical response from other experts. Now a days the scientific "blog-o-sphere" is a mostly wonderful thing IMO.

Please note that it's easy to confuse several things: 1) trends in measurements of extreme weather and other events, 2) attribution studies which attribute weather events partly to climate change and 3) predictions, scenarios, estimations and models of future weather (long term weather forecasts basically).

The editoral IMO employs spin and rhetoric typical of a partisan political editorial -- all the more reason to hold it's claims lightly. The editorial is headed by a photo of a burned vehicles and a caption saying that fires are caused by dryer weather. The consensus among forestry and fire people is that dry conditions are but one factor and not necessarily one of the major factors. Dry weather makes the chance of fire in any year somewhat greater but statistically the fire will come and in many cases the longer the years between fires the hotter they burn. Also, evidence in most regions points to larger and more devastating fires and droughts in the past.

A common opinion among people and scientists who deal with policy about risk reduction is that most societies could do far more to deal with the climate we already have; the climate we would have if there was no climate change. There is a IMO cynical, manipulative tendency to exploit these existing risks with deceptive speech which misdirects the reader into thinking the issue is largely about man-made climate change.
--------------------------------
To explain my words above ...
Maybe it's a bit of journal jealousy but Nature (and especially with other 'prestige' journals where there is lot of competition to get published) has a reputation for rarely publishing failed replication reports. That is second rate science by my definition because replication is a important quality control method of science. This is not to point a finger especially at one journal, it's a recognized systemic problem. There is a strong consensus in the science community that there is a noticeable gap between the ideals of high quality science and what usually happens. Combine the usual pressures on science with fads and/or social bias ("the politicization of science") and it makes for a frustrating stew of taints.

Advocates, campaigners and scientists themselves engage in their own form of so-called "science denial".
Keith Kloor wrote:In an article in the winter 2017 edition of Issues in Science and Technology, I reported on the different ways journalists and researchers working in the scientific arena are hounded and sometimes smeared by agenda-driven activists. A similar activity that is equally pernicious, if not much discussed, is the different ways scientists are sometimes aggressively policed by their peers. It’s the ugly side of science, where worldviews, politics, and personalities collide.

It seems that highly charged issues, such as climate change and genetically modified organisms, engender the most active policing in the scientific community. I’ve also observed another common strand: scientists who become preoccupied with the public interpretation or political implications of scientific findings tend to deputize themselves as sheriffs of scientific literature and public debate.
-- http://issues.org/33-4/the-science-police/ also at
http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ocacy.html
Example:
(Nature rejected the paper referred to below. It was published in another journal to little fanfare.)
: A reviewer for a paper submitted to Nature wrote:Unfortunately, while the authors are careful to state that they are discussing biodiversity changes at local scales, and to explain why this is relevant to the scientific community, clearly media reporting on these results are going to skim right over that and report that biological diversity is not declining if this paper were to be published in Nature. I do not think this conclusion would be justified, and I think it is important not to pave the way for that conclusion to be reached by the public.
Translation: It's scientifically valid but we shouldn't admit that because the wrong people may twist it and use it in their propaganda. As Kloor writes, this behavior is not much discussed in public but it's not rare in the face of highly charged issues. One can find a number of reports in the comment sections of science blogs and when heterodox scientists are asked the question.
Outside of science we know this kind of thing goes on in politics and around charged social issues. Scientists are humans, not robots. A way to fight it at the systematic level is viewpoint diversity which often leads to more transparency. "Red teams" are one such approach.

In social science: https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:02 am, edited 4 times in total.

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by alan » Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:16 am

According this article, we may be near the point of no return.
http://grist.org/article/let-it-go-the- ... ign=buffer

chownah
Posts: 7534
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:03 am

The editorial from nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08808-y) is an editorial.....that means it contians OPINION. Opinion contains a personal bias....that is why it is opinion and not fact. At least this is how I approach editorials.

First it is important to realise that the article is an editorial....then one can go about seperating the opinion from the facts. No need to chastise the author for having opinions and a bias....there should be felt a need to identify the bias and to analyse its importance.

The author stated:
climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
Here are statements from the three research articles the editorial references to support that statement:
http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch3.pdf
Summary. According to the CMIP5 simulations,
2016’s record global January–December warmth
would not have been possible under climate conditions
of the early 1900s—anthropogenic forcing was
a necessary condition (Hannart et al. 2016) for the
event.
Anthropogenic forcing contributed most of
this warmth (relative to 1881–1920 conditions), while
natural forcings and intrinsic variability (including
El Niño) made relatively small contributions to the
January–December 2016 global mean.
http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch19.pdf
Conclusions. All of the risk of the extremely high
temperatures over Asia in 2016 can be attributed
to anthropogenic warming.
In addition, the ENSO
condition made the extreme warmth two times more
likely to occur. It is found that anthropogenic warming
contributed to raising the level of event probability
almost everywhere, although the 2015/16 El Niño
contributed to a regional increase of warm events
over the Maritime Continent, the Philippines, and
Southeast Asia, but had little significant contribution
elsewhere in Asia.

http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch8.pdf
Conclusion. The warmth of the Bering Sea in 2016
was unprecedented in the historical record, and
the warmth of the GOA nearly so. The FAR values
based on an ensemble of five global climate models
indicate that the 2016 warm ocean anomalies cannot
be explained without anthropogenic climate warming,
although the region’s large internal variability
was also a contributing factor
(Fig. 8.1 and online
supplement material). A strong El Niño with a positive
PDO (warm) phase, together with preconditioning
of the waters during 2014/15 and the anomalous
atmospheric circulation of early 2016, made for a
“perfect storm” of marine heating around Alaska.
Both anthropogenic forcing and internal variability
were necessary for the extreme warmth of the subarctic
seas. Our conclusions are consistent with and
extend previous findings concerning the 2014 warm
SST anomalies in the northeast Pacific (Weller et al.
2015). Additionally, the trajectory of the present climate
with RCP8.5 indicates that SST and HC extreme
anomalies like 2016 will become common in the
coming decades. Given the many impacts of the 2016
anomaly, the future climate projected here will result
in a profound shift for people, systems, and species
when such warm ocean temperatures become common
and not extreme in the GOA and Bering regions.
My view on this is that the parts I have colored red do in fact justify they authors statement. As to the question about the author exagerating: This is an editorial and we should expect that language to be more compelling than a research report.....my view is that the author's language is appropriate for an editorial opinon article.

Once one has identified the article as being opinion one does have the option to go the the articles themselves to find a more factual basis for these results since the author has provided links to them as well as the link to the american meteorological societies presentation which contains the three articles as well as a very informative introductory statement and links to 27 additional articles Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective.
chownah

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by alan » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:16 am

No, it is a scientific fact. Not an opinion.
You do know the difference, right? My opinion is that people who do not listen to science are God Dam Idiots. That is my opinion. You can argue about that.
Facts are real, however, and they exist independent of any opinion.
Right?

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:58 am

chownah wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:03 am
The editorial from nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08808-y) is an editorial.....that means it contians OPINION. Opinion contains a personal bias....that is why it is opinion and not fact. At least this is how I approach editorials.

First it is important to realise that the article is an editorial....then one can go about seperating the opinion from the facts. No need to chastise the author for having opinions and a bias....there should be felt a need to identify the bias and to analyse its importance.

...My view on this is that the parts I have colored red do in fact justify they authors statement. As to the question about the author exagerating: This is an editorial and we should expect that language to be more compelling than a research report.....my view is that the author's language is appropriate for an editorial opinon article.

Once one has identified the article as being opinion one does have the option to go the the articles themselves to find a more factual basis for these results since the author has provided links to them as well as the link to the american meteorological societies presentation which contains the three articles as well as a very informative introductory statement and links to 27 additional articles Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective.
chownah
Thanks, Chownah.
alan wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:16 am
No, it is a scientific fact. Not an opinion.
You do know the difference, right? My opinion is that people who do not listen to science are God Dam Idiots. That is my opinion. You can argue about that.
Facts are real, however, and they exist independent of any opinion.
Right?
Alan,
Chownah was not arguing against the science, just about whether the science did actually support the views expressed in the editorial. I always thought they did, and now that he has tracked through the sources (always a good idea), he thinks so too.

Leeuwenhoek2, on the other hand, still seems to be too preoccupied with the inner workings of the science community to have much of an opinion about this particular factual issue.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:02 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:58 am
Leeuwenhoek2, on the other hand, still seems to be too preoccupied with the inner workings of the science community to have much of an opinion about this particular factual issue.
Kim, I did offer a couple of opinions about this particular factual issue. I think you mis attribute the generality of my statements with a mindful reluctance to comment on new research without first reading it and reading the comments of others more qualified in the topic. Patience.

Saying I'm too preoccupied with the inner workings of the science community is like saying that a scientist is preoccupied with the scientific method or a Buddhist is preoccupied with studying the buddha dharma or translating Pali, Chinese or Tibetan.

I admit to a fascination with this stuff but in my estimation the compassionate action, especially for the non-climate scientist, is not in the latest semi-theoretical studies. For it does little to nothing to help break the deadlock over nuclear power for instance. (A prominent climate scientist and activist is labeled a denier for publicly calling for more nuclear in the electricity mix.)
Or increase funding for a diversity of energy research which has been a bi-partisan snooze issue in the US for decades.

My prediction is that more reports like this will excite the already convinced, not do much for the majority in the middle who aren't willing or convinced to go on a war footing, and nothing for everyone else. I think the key to social progress is the majority in the middle and the unconvinced -- the moderate warmers and the luke-warmers. You don't have to convince everybody -- just find common reasons to work together on solutions. You might be surprised by how many so-called "deniers" have solar panels, are concerned with energy efficiency, talk of our responsibility as stewards of the earth as a Christian or secular responsibility and prefer cleaner electrical energy sources than coal. Research and experience shows that there are much more effective ways of reaching them which have little to do with attribution studies. For example: https://climateoutreach.org/

--------------------------
chownah
I read your extract of Walsh et. al. 2017
http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch8.pdf
After a quick look What do you make of the FAR computation?
Does the supplement give us a date for he preindustrial period? Or it is preindustrial = random periods from the simulations from 1900-2005?
"If the models’ century-scale trends represent the anthropogenic forcing signal, then one may argue that the larger values of the observed trends are partially attributable to internal variability" -- Do they assume that the trend since 1900 is all anthropogenic?
The assumption that all long term change is due to anthropogenic forcing seems to creep into attribution estimates as it has this one.

When they conclude that "2016 warm ocean anomalies cannot be explained without anthropogenic climate warming" it means "the simulations under our assumptions won't simulate the current climate without it". That leads to the obvious questions.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests