NOAA&NASA: 2014 Warmest Year on Record

[Northeast Stinger]

I have never understood the climate debate.

There have been many snowball earths and many hell-on-earths over the last billion years.

Is the point of the climate debate to figure out which one is up next because one of them surely is.

I am a lay person in this debate so I have been told not to comment. But your question seems easy enough to give a simple answer to. You are basically right about there being cycles of heating and cooling over time. Something seems to be happening in the latest cycle and the debate is over whether this "weather anomaly" is still part of the normal cycle, or if some significant change is occurring, and if it is not part of the normal cycle, what is causing it.

 

[00Burdell]

I am a lay person in this debate so I have been told not to comment. But your question seems easy enough to give a simple answer to. You are basically right about there being cycles of heating and cooling over time. Something seems to be happening in the latest cycle and the debate is over whether this "weather anomaly" is still part of the normal cycle, or if some significant change is occurring, and if it is not part of the normal cycle, what is causing it.

So the first challenge is to find the baseline behaviour of a chaotic system that bounces between icebox and hothouse. Then determine whether or not we have jumped the tracks. Then determine the relative contribution of all the inputs into the system well enough to understand which ones to modify, the direction of the modification and the magnitude of the modification. And, since its a chaotic system, the inputs are partially dependent on the outputs so the analysis yields a different answer as the state of the system changes. And this assumes that it is possible to modify the inputs at all. The other thing that concerns me is that it is completely unknown how much locked-in stress there is in the current climate state. When a system bounces between extremes, there are forces pulling in (at least) two directions. If the system is stable, you can't always tell how hard each side is pulling - only that the forces are cancelling each other. Introducing an imbalance - even a very small one - can produce a completely disproportionate effect (think camel and just one more straw).

But we can't be sure if a snowstorm hitting NY in 24 hours will dump three feet of snow or six inches of snow.

My position on this, right or wrong, is simple. The debate about causality is folly. Just leave the system alone - don't alter the composition of the air or the ocean. The chances that intervention will make the system more stable versus the unintended consequence of making it less stable are not on our side.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Interesting position. Here are a few things that jump out at me.

So the first challenge is to find the baseline behaviour of a chaotic system that bounces between icebox and hothouse.

I am comfortable with your short had of "icebox and hothouse." Like I said, I am a layman so precision of analysis is not a feature for me. But we should probably note that "icebox and hothouse" do not refer to catastrophic change. If they did then life could not exist on planet earth. Climate seems to seek an equilibrium even as it moves from one cycle to the next. These cycles also occur gradually. The question is about whether this process is changing in dramatic and unexpected ways.

But we can't be sure if a snowstorm hitting NY in 24 hours will dump three feet of snow or six inches of snow.

I am not sure why this is thrown in there. We are talking about climate and not weather. We can't be sure about how much snow (weather) but we pretty well understand the mechanisms for producing snow and we can usually tell that winter will be cold (climate). The question is about whether something is happening globally to climate patterns. These could in fact have catastrophic implications for local weather but that is part of the debate.

The debate about causality is folly.

I am not sure that research is ever folly if it is done with integrity. Right now there is a broad consensus among noted scientists around the world that green houses gases began increasing during the industrial age and that continued increases have had a measurable impact on the temperature of the earth. There are also sophisticated models that attempt to predict what these increased temperatures will do to "live ability"for much of the human population and in turn what the dominoes might be for coastal cities impacted, huge populations shifts, strains on infrastructure, crop failure, increases in certain diseases, wars over resources, etc.

What these guys are discussing on here is how to read the data on these temperature changes and how reliable they are. In theory several different outcomes are possible with regard to anthropocentric global warming, but the argument for some is over how reliable the date is and whether we can ever construct a model that will be meaningful for gathering, interpreting and predicting major changes.

 

[cyptomcat]

My position on this, right or wrong, is simple. The debate about causality is folly. Just leave the system alone - don't alter the composition of the air or the ocean. The chances that intervention will make the system more stable versus the unintended consequence of making it less stable are not on our side.

So, your position would be to stop doing this right?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So, your position would be to stop doing this right?

I guess you could say putting crap in the air is messing with it.

 

[AE 87]

I guess you could say putting crap in the air is messing with it.

Are you committed to not putting that crap, CO2, in the air?

 

[00Burdell]

So, your position would be to stop doing this right?

My position is that altering the composition of the atmosphere either intentionally or unintentionally is asking for it. The problems with systems like global climate include the difficulty in disentangling correlation from causation as well as the indeterminate probability that dialing back an input will restore the system to the state it was at when the input was at a previous level. In other words, sometimes, there is no turning back because putting one thing back the way it was is not the same thing as putting everything back the way it was.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

My position is that altering the composition of the atmosphere either intentionally or unintentionally is asking for it. The problems with systems like global climate include the difficulty in disentangling correlation from causation as well as the indeterminate probability that dialing back an input will restore the system to the state it was at when the input was at a previous level. In other words, sometimes, there is no turning back because putting one thing back the way it was is not the same thing as putting everything back the way it was.

So it sounds like your position has changed from quit messing with the environment to keep unintentionally messing with the environment.

 

[00Burdell]

So it sounds like your position has changed from quit messing with the environment to keep unintentionally messing with the environment.

No, what I mean to say is that we should refrain from tampering with the environment as a general proposition. Further, I'm saying that having already tampered with (intentionally or unintentionally) it is not a justification for continuing to tamper with it since the effect of the continued tampering cannot be known with certainty. So, basically, my point is that we can't be certain of the effect of having added CO2, hydrocarbons, methane, etc. that otherwise would not have been added. We can only hope that the system will absorb the additional material and balance itself out to a new equilibrium state that is not adverse to us.

Now we really have no way of knowing whether continuing to add material to the atmosphere and/or oceans makes the system more stable or less stable in the long run or where the future equilibrium state will be relative to today's climate. For example, let's say we start pumping methane into the air which undeniably allows the atmosphere to absorb and hold more heat. Something still has to add the heat but lets just assume something does (solar wind kicks up, etc.). So we are headed for greenhouse territory. Then glaciers melt, rivers overflow and a ton of fresh water pours into the North Atlantic which alters the salinity and, therefore, the density of the seawater just enough to shut down the thermodynamic engine that powers the North Atlantic current. Boom: instant ice age. Throw in a few volcanoes which dump enough stuff into the atmosphere to turn it into a heat sink but which also block solar radiation and who knows how things will turn out. The CO2/methane/etc. we have already pumped into the sky might tip the balance toward another ice age or another greenhouse. Your guess is as good as mine as to which is more likely.

So, that is why I advocate leaving the system alone to the maximum practical extent. Too hard to understand the consequences of what we are doing.

 

[cyptomcat]

@00Burdell that's essentially what a lot of scientists say, that is, limit addition of new CO2 as much as possible. As you see from the measurements, we are adding more and more instead.

 

[00Burdell]

@00Burdell that's essentially what a lot of scientists say, that is, keep CO2 about the same level it is. As you see from the measurements, we are adding more and more instead.

The increasing level of CO2 will undoubtedly lead to an increase in levels of ocean algae. The good news is that the increase in algae will temper the increase in CO2. The bad news is that a spike in algae levels limits the depth that sunlight can penetrate into the sea which wreaks havoc on ocean and coastal ecosystems - especially when you throw in the effect of nitrogen runoff. Yikes.

 

[Longestday]

Question: Has the earth's CO2 levels ever been higher than todays readings and what caused the increase due to missing industrialized man?

Has the earth ever been warmer or cooler than today? What caused these events?

Is the biggest concern warming or cooling?

Keep in mind we exhale CO2. I love the reducing CO2 commercial that shows everyone taking deep breaths. I find it ironic.

I ran across this... I don't believe everything I read, but I thought it may add to the discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

[00Burdell]

Apparently, we can't even trust the scientists. Splendid.

 

[AE 87]

Homewood on Arctic

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/

 

[cyptomcat]

I saw that on Stingtalk, and I would like to look deeper into it, because Arctic reconstruction is in fact a huge issue. I had a brief look, but Homewood's analysis seems to be lacking. Hopefully someone else will look deeper into it, maybe Hausfather or someone
else. Copying from my Stingtalk post:

I only checked Homewood's Iceland claim, and it seems wrong. I don't understand how he can claim the Icelandic trend is adjusted to appear a warmer trend.

The Icelandic Met Office finds 0.76 degrees of warming per century at Stykkishólmur, the Berkeley Earth data (similar to NASA's algorithm) actually adjusts it to 0.60 degrees of warming per century. So adjustment isn't even 'up'.

Icelandic Met Office: http://en.vedur.is/weather/articles/nr/2614
Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/155466

I even plotted the NASA data myself for the available range, and I don't see a clear adjustment to make it seem warmer later or cooler earlier (see below.) While 1890-1930 is adjusted slightly lower, 1950-1970 is adjusted even a lot lower. Several years in in 1970 is also adjusted lower, but relatively few.

Also, Homewood lists only 4 stations for Iceland in Appendix A, but there are a lot more there:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/station/155466

Map of the stations:

 

[AE 87]

Thanks, cyp. Fwiw, Homewood lists those four as having adjusted data.

 

[cyptomcat]

Thanks, cyp. Fwiw, Homewood lists those four as having adjusted data.

In Appendix A, for Russia and Norway, he lists both adjusted and non-adjusted, so I figured it should be the exhaustive list of stations. Anyway, my point is there are a lot more stations in Iceland to look at.

I am updating the plot I made above with linear fits and cleaner data. I just discovered NASA GISS provides 3 sets of temperature data, and I am not sure if I used the correct two out of the three. The way NASA provides data is pretty confusing, and IMO NASA is definitely part of the problem. Homewood mixing up NASA, NOAA etc. together, choosing some of the stations and then the way he writes up everything make it all even more confusing. I wish either one party or other did a better analysis. I blame both sides, but I blame NASA more. They are getting paid for this and it's their job to settle all public confusion...

 

[AE 87]

Yeah, @cyptomcat I didn't take the list as nec exhaustive of stations but stations discussed.

I agree that too much reporting, from all sides seems directed to agenda rather than truth.

 

[cyptomcat]

Ok, I do a Google search, and Homewood has the best explanation for the different sources of data:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/how-to-access-giss-temperature-records/

It looks like Homewood is looking at something slightly different than I was looking at. I was looking at adjusted temperatures
after all the adjustments. He is looking at data before the final two adjustments that remove suspicious records
and homogenize for a region.

I guess, I can do it two ways, Homewood-way, and my-way (all adjustments vs raw).

 

[cyptomcat]

oops, mistake, updating in next post