Timeline for Is this refutation of Climate Change scientifically valid? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| S Feb 8, 2019 at 0:36 | history | suggested | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken image fixed (click 'rendered output' to see the difference); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f
|
| Feb 7, 2019 at 17:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 8, 2019 at 0:36 | |||||
| Nov 29, 2016 at 23:49 | comment | added | Mark | @Nitin - there's a new and very good discussion of satellite temperature data which explains your first chart on Tamino's blog: tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/#more-9001 | |
| Nov 28, 2016 at 23:33 | comment | added | Sebastian Redl | Ewert's paper accuses NASA of massively reducing the number of weather stations considered in the data over time, being selective about it (removing those where the climate cools), and not compensating for the effect. It does not accuse them of modifying the data in any way. | |
| Nov 28, 2016 at 18:12 | comment | added | ventsyv | @Nitin The article has since changed, the charts you are referencing have been replaced by a chart of a single station in Quixeramobim, Ceará, Brasil. Data homogenization is very common, looking at one particular station without examining the reason behind the data adjustments and the methodology that was applied is at the very least misleading. | |
| Nov 28, 2016 at 17:43 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | It would be entirely safe to dismiss Breitbart out of hand, given their track record. If you wanted to source other stories, from organizations with even minimal credibility, on the same claims, that might be a better way to go. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 9:52 | comment | added | user18604 | BEST are a team of scientists based at Berkely who were skeptical about climate change, so they developed a homogenisation algorithm to see if there was any unjustified tampering of the data. What did they find? Their temperature dataset shows pretty much the same thing as the NASA and UEA datasets (land only). This issue really has been done to death already, and it is telling that some continue to promulgate it, despite the fact that the answers are all ready well known, the code and data are all available and the work replicated by skeptics and found to be good. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 9:45 | comment | added | user18604 | BTW it is rather ironic that NASA are accused of tampering with the data, but if you look at the difference between the last two versions of the UAH dataset (produced by climate skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer) then it is clear that the modification reduces the apparent warming (woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:60/plot/uah6/mean:60). Is anyone accusing them of fudging the data to give the conclusion they want? No, because most people who have looked into it understand the reasons why these adjustments are required, and the satellites need just as much adjustment as surface data. | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 9:36 | comment | added | user18604 | BTW in the last diagram, the three series seem to have been aligned to give the same reading in about 1998, which was a strong El-Nino year, for which the satelite records show a stronger reaction than the surface measurements. This artificially exaggerates the difference between the surface and satellite records. I suspect most of the difference between the surface and satellite records is ENSO (see the Foster and Rahmsdorf paper that crops up in discussions of "the pause" in warming). | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 9:32 | comment | added | user18604 | I think this is mostly a version of skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22086/… See my answer there (and particularly the paper by Trewin that explains why homogenisation is required.). Note also the satellite and surface records are not measuring the same thing (so we would expect them to be different) and the satelite measurements are more affected by ENSO. The code and data are all publicly available, so the idea there has been something dodgy going on is just silly IMHO. | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 14:09 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 29, 2016 at 3:00 | |||||
| Nov 24, 2016 at 5:02 | comment | added | Nitin | @Sklivvz I was taking graphs from the other Breitbart article the author wrote and linked to in this article. If I edit that in, could I request a re-evaluation of the closing? | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 4:39 | comment | added | jamesqf | If one assumes that Ewert is correct, then it becomes rather difficult to explain why the effects of the supposedly nonexistent warming are observed in a multitude of things like Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, earlier bloom times for plants, &c, and why those observations are consistent with the warming expected from theory, which the Goddard researchers have supposedly faked their data to match. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 23:44 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | One factor here: There was a consistent error with satellite readings that NASA corrected. The satellites can't actually read temperature, it must be calculated and one of the factors in that calculation is the altitude of the satellite. They forgot to take into account the slow fall of satellites in low orbits, causing a consistently climbing under-read on satellite-based temperatures. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 23:12 | comment | added | Sklivvz | This question seems to be based on your original research instead of a notable claim (the BB article you link has nothing to do with the graphs, as far as I can tell). | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 23:07 | history | closed | Sklivvz | Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 22:49 | comment | added | RomaH | If you are referring to trough between 1900 and 1995, that could be numerous reasons but bare in mind that is only 5 years and depending on how you want to cut that five year it could be seen as flat. More telling is the overall trend which is up. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 22:32 | answer | added | RomaH | timeline score: 11 | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 21:07 | answer | added | ebleo | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | Nitin | Thank you, that's what I'm looking for. If you're knowledgeable on this subject, could you please explain what this urban warming effect is and why we might like to correct for it? What's the cause of the disparity between, say, 1990 and 1995, which was before this correction came in to play? The other two lines are quite close. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 20:04 | comment | added | RomaH | This is a tired, old trope deniers trot around like it is new and evidence of tampering. Looking at just raw data is frankly dumb; the 'tampering' NASA is supposedly doing is simply data homogenisation, they even state what they do in their methodology page. Ewert should know this. Short outline of the 'tampering' on the 6th header down. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 19:40 | comment | added | Nitin | I'm more interested in an explanation in terms of the climate science of why they deviate so much past 2000 or so. It's hard for a layperson to understand exactly what each of the indices are measuring. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 19:39 | history | edited | Nitin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 48 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2016 at 19:38 | comment | added | Nitin | I'm aware, I made the second chart myself. I'll be more clear in my post. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 19:22 | comment | added | T. Sar | The time interval that is being compared in the two charts is different. The first one is a zoomed-in version of the second one, focusing on the 1996-2006 interval. The second chart, the one with the warming trend, goes far back - up to 1980. If you pay attention to the 96-06 segment of the second chart, you'll see clearly the outline of the first one. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 19:15 | history | edited | Nitin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2016 at 19:00 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 23, 2016 at 23:11 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2016 at 18:59 | history | asked | Nitin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |