On Climate Change: Whether We're Ready To Act And Whether Climate Science Is Under Siege

[Walt In Seattle]

For several years, it has been obvious that Americans, on the whole, are aware of climate change and many verging on most see it as a problem. However, few recognize climate change as a problem that impacts them directly or that WILL impact them directly to the extent they'd support substantive action to mitigate the pace of climate change for the purpose of extending the amount of time human beings in particular might have to adapt as climate evolves.

Unfortunately, too many of us do not wish to deal with a problem -- whether it pertains to climate or something else -- unless it is immediate and urgent. Too many of us are put-off Kings and Queens. In other words: "If it isn't at my doorstep RIGHT NOW and a major threat to my life or my property, just don't bother me with this climate stuff!" The problem with that POV is that waiting until it's "urgent" is or will be waiting until it's too late to act.

Climate change is not a can you get to kick down the road and ultimately survive as a species. It may be difficult to think in terms of saving the lives of those who otherwise may die 200 or 300 years from now, and especially given many of us believe we have more pressing issues with which to cope in the present while we could live out our lives in some places or move then not suffer in a climate we can't handle. However, if you care at all for future generations of your family if not others....

Whatever solution may be possible, and I understand a solution which can save us from a fate several-hundred years into the future might not be possible, that solution will NOT come in the absence of political action. That part of the climate change issue is crystal clear -- no scientific studies needed to hash that out! So, we have a choice to make and not a lot of time in which to make it. Whatever solution we might design will not be CERTAIN to save us and it's likely the process will be lengthy, difficult, fraught with initial errors, costly and replete with self-deprivation but perhaps not so much as some climate change deniers or climate impact minimalists would claim. Yet, if it will be all of this, is it not worth it to at least TRY to save humanity from consequences HUMANITY created?

http://www.popsci.com/heidi-cullen-profile

Context is everything and context is established, in regard to climate change, through access to reliable information -- in this case, information about climate change developed through research. There are those attempting to limit or put to an end climate research. They attack the process of scientific peer review which has served science well. They also intend to deprive climate science in particular of money needed to conduct important research -- research that will be crucial in finding/developing SOLUTIONS to the climate change problem. If you see climate science and climate scientists as under siege, one of two principal means of defense is available. That's political action and advocacy. The other is private sector support for research projects. I expect climate science in need of both.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anxiety-mounts-at-national-labs-over-future-of-climate-research/

[Seaview]

On 6/25/2017 9:54 PM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
> Context is everything and context is established, in regard to climate change, through access to reliable information -- in this case, information about climate change developed through research.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/27/inconvenient-record-arctic-sea-ice-growth-in-september/


https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/


http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/

[Walt In Seattle]

Again, WUWT and Climate Depot are questionable sources.

[Seaview]

On 7/6/2017 12:00 PM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
> Again, WUWT and Climate Depot are questionable sources.
>

Only to "true believers" who hew to corrupt datasets.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html


They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s
damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on
climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming
there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically
flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that
for a fact.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature
readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global
average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting
warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a
veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature
datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which
make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made
global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature
thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t
question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them
increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very
nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather
stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of
charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool
past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming
trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,”
Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News
Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming
and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get
warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said
D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and
Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

[Walt In Seattle]

<LOL>

Could you do no better than the Daily Caller or the Daily Mail?

[Seaview]

On 7/11/2017 11:56 AM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
> <LOL>

Bask at ya.

> Could you do no better than the Daily Caller or the Daily Mail?

Could you address the actual material cited and not play "shoot the
messenger"?

[Walt In Seattle]

Why should I have any respect for the Daily Caller on Climate Change? They often seem to distort information through sins of omission or by cherrypicking for their agenda to dismiss ACC out of hand. In the article you quoted, Seaview, the same appears to have occured.

The Daily Caller does not reveal the "research", to which they refer, is a hit piece more than science -- an item of advocacy intended to place in question EPA's previous CO2 Endangerment cnclusions, thus setting the predicate for dismantling the "Clean Power" plan initiated just before President Obama left office. Significantly, this "research", which the Daily Caller fails to reveal, depends heavily on those, such as Pielke and Mcintyre, well-known proponents of the notion harmful ACC is a myth or at least unproven, to back their assertions as to the validity or lackthereof in GAST data. To see the difference between the article and the cited "research", go read:

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
_______________________________________
On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average

Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding

Abridged Research Report

Dr. James P. Wallace III
Dr. Joseph S. D'Aleo
Dr. Craig D. Idso

[...]

Abstract

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so-called Lines of Evidence in EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

[...]

The assumption that Global Average Surface Temperature Data is valid is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. This may be easily seen by reviewing each Line of Evidence.

Stated simply, first, the Tropical Hot Spot (THS) is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations.

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHG concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, climate models are said to be valid for policy analysis purposes, that is, their predictions of the impact of rising CO2 levels on future GAST levels are said to be credible. Thus, GAST is the critical variable in all the climate models EPA has relied upon. These are the climate models that EPA relied upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan -- recently put on hold by a Supreme Court stay. These climate models were also critical to the Social Cost of Carbon estimates EPA had used to justify a multitude of regulations across U.S. Government agencies.

Clearly, if GAST data is not valid, neither is the Endangerment Finding.

[...]

It is not surprising that there is good agreement between NOAA,NASA and Hadley on past temperatures given that they all largely use the same raw data. The "best estimate" that has been reported is that 90 - 95% of the raw data is the same in each of the data sets (Pielke). Steve McIntyre's analysis showed 95.6% concordance between GHCN and Hadley CRU.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. notes: "The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not "completely independent." Each of the three surface temperature analysis suffer from unresolved uncertainties and biases as we documented..." [...]
---------------------------------------

Ergo, Seaview, you should appreciate why I have little or no trust in the Daily Caller on climate change. As for the old news you cited from the Daily Mail, it's well-documented that the so-called whistleblower, John Bates, (ONLY in Lavar Smith's political wet dreams) was little more than a critic of "process" and what Bates might contend was a misuse of research for a political purpose. That would be RICH coming from Bates, however, in that one of his first stops, if not his first to complain, was on Judith Curry's BLOG -- Curry being the darling of Republicans such as Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith. But there's absolutely NO EVIDENCE Karl improperly manipulated or carelessly rushed analysis of data for his study. On the other hand, there IS evidence in the work of Carl Mears at RSS corroborating Thumas Karl's conclusions.

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/04/new-study-confirms-noaa-finding-of-faster-global-warming

Did Karl attempt to time the release of his study so that it would be fresh in the minds of World leaders when COP21 was convened? That's debatable. Whether Karl's data was improperly analyzed and wrong conclusions reached is NOT! And John Bates has not questioned Karl's conclusions rather then implied Karl's work had a political or geopolitical purpose. End of story and end of another David Rose badly vetted piece of journalism.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

[Seaview]

On 7/11/2017 7:35 PM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
> Why should I have any respect for the Daily Caller on Climate Change? They often seem to distort information through sins

LOLOL!

Shoot the messenger is such a clay=heaaded FAIL.

You moron.