The Environment/Climate Change Thread

[n i k o]

Couldn't find a similar thread about it so move this if there is one. 

So NOAA has been exposed for producing exaggerated results in their climate change report in order to affect governments climate policy. It'll be interesting how someone like Trump reacts to this information if the inquiry into the NOAA finds them guilty of using data that suits their own agenda. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by n i k o

[Harrison]

There are so many things wrong with the claims made against NOAA, it is hard to know where to begin. 

NOAA hasn't been exposed for producing exaggerated results in order to affect climate policy. This is false, deliberately misleading and does a disservice to climate science.

So naturally Trump will gravitate towards it. Sadly, these bullshit articles and their claims are much more widely shared than the rebuttals which refute them. 

[Shahanga]

As a scientist I am appalled that it seems impossible to have a rational debate about climate change and anthropological warming without it degenerating into insults in a few minutes and for all scientists who do what we are supposed to do (ask hard questions, test hypotheses, use rigorous thinking) to be black listed and hounded out of their positions.

I am yet to hear decent answers to the legitimate questions raised. In my world you can't win a scientific argument by slinging insults and labels in lieu of data and analysis.

[Harrison]

I don't disagree. 

I'm sure you understand that there are thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers in reputable journals concerning climate science, so perhaps you can find decent answers to your legitimate questions. 

 

[n i k o]

10 hours ago, Harrison said:

There are so many things wrong with the claims made against NOAA, it is hard to know where to begin. 

NOAA hasn't been exposed for producing exaggerated results in order to affect climate policy. This is false, deliberately misleading and does a disservice to climate science.

So naturally Trump will gravitate towards it. Sadly, these bullshit articles and their claims are much more widely shared than the rebuttals which refute them. 

Are you saying that it's not possible for this to happen? Fwiw the whistleblower is former principle scientist at NAOO, John Bates. Now this guy could certainly be full of shit and have his own personal agenda. However I wouldn't completely dismiss it until there's been further investigation into the matter which is currently underway by my understanding. 

 

Below is a link to his blog regarding the matter:

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/ 

[Harrison]

Of course it is possible but you're asking the wrong question. The more pertinent question is: are the claims made by the original Daily Mail article a fair representation of the claims actually made by Bates (who is a data scientist and responsible for the creation of data storage and handling procedures)? 

The coverage of this story is predictable; it has been misrepresented and re-published by virtually every climate denying news organisation and blog.

Even Bates himself has clarified that it relates to data archiving and other procedural issues, none of which impact on the validity and integrity of the study, which has been independently verified by another research group. Not to mention that Bates himself now states that no data was tampered and believes in AGW. I could point out that there are multiple lines of evidence in support of AGW, and that this is just one, but that would be superfluous.

FWIW, I haven't dismissed the part about internal procedures not being followed. Their investigation will deal with that. I take umbrage at your first claim, which is that NOAA exaggerated results to further their agenda. That is what I refer to as false, misleading and a disservice to climate science. 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Harrison

[GreenSeater]

2 minutes ago, Harrison said:

Of course it is possible but you're asking the wrong question. The more pertinent question is: are the claims made by the original Daily Mail article a fair representation of the claims actually made by Bates (who is a data scientist and responsible for the creation of data storage and handling procedures)? 

The coverage of this story is predictable; it has been misrepresented and re-published by virtually every climate denying news organisation and blog.

Even Bates himself has clarified that it relates to data archiving and other procedural issues, none of which impact on the validity and integrity of the study, which has been independently verified by another research group. Not to mention that Bates himself now states that no data was tampered and believes in AGW. I could point out that there are multiple lines of evidence in support of AGW, and that this is just one, but that would be superfluous.

FWIW, I haven't dismissed the part about internal procedures not being followed. Their investigation will deal with that. I take umbrage at your first claim, which is that NOAA exaggerated results to further their agenda. That is what I refer to as false, misleading and a disservice to climate science. 

 

 

Out of likes but this is exactly right

[Tesla]

Fwiw, as someone who doesn't buy into the alarmist reactions to climate change, I've also never been against a carbon tax or emissions trading (even when Gillard tried, though I did enjoy it bringing down her downfall). 

The question is, even if climate change is BS, what's wrong with a carbon tax or similar? 

It apparently costs the economy,  which is arguable because if there is any harm from carbon, not just climate change but any other pollution related harm then it's reasonable to pay for it. There is nothing wrong with that from an economic stand point.

The issue then is that other countries get to emit carbon for free, and that's not fair or right. So we have to pursue global agreements. 

In the case that we pay a carbon tax and other countries aren't controlling their emissions it does cost our economy. 

But, and this is the most important part, pretty much all taxes cost the economy. So if a carbon tax was used to replace/reduce company tax or income tax, is a carbon tax actually costing our economy? The answer to that question would probably be which tax is worse, but it's not like such rational economic decisions are made by government anyway.

I think there is also a strong argument to be made about the fact that our clean environment is leading to greater tourism and even exports of 'clean air'  to China. Or in other words, we have a competitive advantage in our environment that is worth protecting. 

TLDR : I am both sceptical of the hype surrounding climate change but also the hype surrounding the economic damage that combating CC would do to our economy. In fact I'd argue there is a very strong economic case for fighting CC.

Add carbon tax, cut clean energy subsidies etc, cut company tax to the same budgetary effect as those two changes, and I can't see a carbon tax being particularly detrimental to the economy. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Or to put it another way, it seems to me the climate change debate isn't even about climate change. It's a battle between left wing and right wing economic ideology. The left want to get their hands on more tax money to redistribute, the right don't want to hurt the economy with more taxes.

But I think there is a compromise that basically keeps the status quo intact economically, while decreasing our carbon emissions. And if the CC debate was really about CC, then I don't see why people wouldn't be gravitating to something along the lines of what I've said. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Tesla

[GreenSeater]

Agree with what you've said @Tesla although I do strongly believe in the dangers of climate change. The biggest point that I think you've made is that even if anthropogenic clinate change does turn out to be bullshit (which I highly doubt it will, but as a lover of science I must be open to the possibility) there are so many benefits that can be reaped from actually taking care of our planet. There are obvious financial benefits such as increased tourism and less related health issues caused by air pollution etc, but there are also good practical effects. At the end of the day, fossil fuels are a finite resource. No matter what harm they do to the environment or not, they will eventually run out. On the other hand, the sun for example is an essentially unlimited source of easily accessed energy, that by the time it runs out will have killed us all anyway. There are also knock on effects in regards to a healthy biosphere, increased biodiversity, better food production and many more that will benefit humanity greatly in the long run. I'm sure as you said there is definitely a way to do it without crippling the economy. I'm not sure how, but that's what economists and scientists are for.

[n i k o]

21 hours ago, Harrison said:

Of course it is possible but you're asking the wrong question. The more pertinent question is: are the claims made by the original Daily Mail article a fair representation of the claims actually made by Bates (who is a data scientist and responsible for the creation of data storage and handling procedures)? 

The coverage of this story is predictable; it has been misrepresented and re-published by virtually every climate denying news organisation and blog.

Even Bates himself has clarified that it relates to data archiving and other procedural issues, none of which impact on the validity and integrity of the study, which has been independently verified by another research group. Not to mention that Bates himself now states that no data was tampered and believes in AGW. I could point out that there are multiple lines of evidence in support of AGW, and that this is just one, but that would be superfluous.

FWIW, I haven't dismissed the part about internal procedures not being followed. Their investigation will deal with that. I take umbrage at your first claim, which is that NOAA exaggerated results to further their agenda. That is what I refer to as false, misleading and a disservice to climate science. 

 

 

Certainly the article doesn't go into enough detail of the facts behind the story. However it appears the NAOO is still responsible for their role in using data from a study that Bates found  questionable, namely the K15 paper. Bates tried to work with the NAOO to check the validity of the paper which does not seem to have been successful. I'm assuming the NAOO provides the government with reports of climate change based on these studies? So if they have used data that is innapropriate then they should be held accountable. Especially if that data effects political policies on both a domestic and international scale regarding global warming. Such is my understanding of the situation. 

[Shahanga]

1 hour ago, n i k o said:

Certainly the article doesn't go into enough detail of the facts behind the story. However it appears the NAOO is still responsible for their role in using data from a study that Bates found  questionable, namely the K15 paper. Bates tried to work with the NAOO to check the validity of the paper which does not seem to have been successful. I'm assuming the NAOO provides the government with reports of climate change based on these studies? So if they have used data that is innapropriate then they should be held accountable. Especially if that data effects political policies on both a domestic and international scale regarding global warming. Such is my understanding of the situation. 

Did sound like it.

people see those temperature graphs for years and think of them as simple factual things, but that's far from the case. They are an attempt to summarise the entire temperature for the year for a whole planet to one point. To do that I imagine  you'd need to make a lot of correlations and assumptions. Doubtless there would be many different ways to do it, all with their own weaknesses. To be honest I'm surprised anyone even attempts it, given the challenges. Given that they do attempt it, it's no surprise to me that there is controversy over the methods and results.

Actually my real surprise is that there isn't more controversy. 

[Harrison]

2 hours ago, n i k o said:

Certainly the article doesn't go into enough detail of the facts behind the story. However it appears the NAOO is still responsible for their role in using data from a study that Bates found  questionable, namely the K15 paper. Bates tried to work with the NAOO to check the validity of the paper which does not seem to have been successful. I'm assuming the NAOO provides the government with reports of climate change based on these studies? So if they have used data that is innapropriate then they should be held accountable. Especially if that data effects political policies on both a domestic and international scale regarding global warming. Such is my understanding of the situation. 

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. Bates didn't find that data questionable, he found the use of it questionable, as it wasn't in an operational form (purely a procedural quibble). Bates said it would have been fine had they put a simple disclosure on the bottom of the paper, but even that has been questioned, so it appears Bates is clutching at straws. He has had to downplay suggestions of misconduct and laments the misrepresentation of his claims, which is the real shame, but I think he knew what he was doing. 

Again, the data they used wasn't inappropriate. It has been found to be accurate. It was always accurate. It has been verified independently. It wasn't rushed. It also didn't effect political policies. One paper wouldn't be able to do that. I'll reiterate that there are multiple lines of evidence, an incredibly large volume of scientific study, in support of AGW.

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

people see those temperature graphs for years and think of them as simple factual things, but that's far from the case. They are an attempt to summarise the entire temperature for the year for a whole planet to one point. To do that I imagine  you'd need to make a lot of correlations and assumptions. Doubtless there would be many different ways to do it, all with their own weaknesses. To be honest I'm surprised anyone even attempts it, given the challenges. Given that they do attempt it, it's no surprise to me that there is controversy over the methods and results.

Actually my real surprise is that there isn't more controversy. 

It's quite a long time since I was directly involved with The Greenhouse Challenge program and the Australian Greenhouse Office (remember them? - I even met the famous Ros Kelly along with her whiteboard) but I'd say that the reason climate scientists present consolidated data is because government decision-makers simply don't have either the time or the knowledge to examine and draw conclusions from multiple datasets. Whatever the assumptions made in the production of the consolidated data actually are shouldn't really matter as long as they are scientifically credible and robust and they are applied uniformly to all datasets. I'd be surprised if the various different ways of analysing the data did produce exactly the same quantitative results, because I wouldn't expect them to, but as Harrison says, there are multiple lines of evidence, and an incredibly large volume of scientific study, in support of AGW.

My surprise is that people are still bickering about it.

[NewConvert]

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

It's quite a long time since I was directly involved with The Greenhouse Challenge program and the Australian Greenhouse Office (remember them? - I even met the famous Ros Kelly along with her whiteboard) but I'd say that the reason climate scientists present consolidated data is because government decision-makers simply don't have either the time or the knowledge to examine and draw conclusions from multiple datasets. Whatever the assumptions made in the production of the consolidated data actually are shouldn't really matter as long as they are scientifically credible and robust and they are applied uniformly to all datasets. I'd be surprised if the various different ways of analysing the data did produce exactly the same quantitative results, because I wouldn't expect them to, but as Harrison says, there are multiple lines of evidence, and an incredibly large volume of scientific study, in support of AGW.

My surprise is that people are still bickering about it.

Large corporations also use consolidated data in most fields. The CEO is not interested in the weekly ups and downs - just the end result.

[Tangerine]

Surprisingly sensible and measured discussion (given the topic).

As someone who has worked in the climate change / energy policy space for a decade there are many reasons to lower Australia's emissions. And the aim should be to do this efficiently, effectively and at least cost (without sending industry/businesses offshore). But any policy / carbon tax / ETS / regulation CANNOT be an excuse for wealth redistribution. This is where the arguments of the left seem to have failed.....it is seen as some lefty/green scam to steal other people's money.

Any carbon price must be used to lower other taxes so that the overall tax take is not increased (as Tesla says above). However, this was actually tried under Gillard - the tax free threshold was increased and income taxes were lowered by around $4 Billion per annum - but no one noticed, and it didn't cut through against Abbott/Barnaby's great big tax on everyone line.

In short, the energy sector is absolutely screwed. Not because of renewables (yes they are one part of the problem) but because the whole sector has become utterly un-investible due to the two major parties backing themselves into their respective ideological corners. There is ZERO chance of sensible policy before 2020. Most of the informed, intelligent rational people i meet  in the energy sector are pretty close to just giving up.

[Harrison]

 

1 hour ago, Tangerine said:

There is ZERO chance of sensible policy before 2020. Most of the informed, intelligent rational people i meet  in the energy sector are pretty close to just giving up.

Let's hope the NEM review provides a blueprint for reform, though it'll largely depend on all parties accepting the recommendations, even the unpalatable ones. Does the industry place much hope in this review? 

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, Tangerine said:

Surprisingly sensible and measured discussion (given the topic).

As someone who has worked in the climate change / energy policy space for a decade there are many reasons to lower Australia's emissions. And the aim should be to do this efficiently, effectively and at least cost (without sending industry/businesses offshore). But any policy / carbon tax / ETS / regulation CANNOT be an excuse for wealth redistribution. This is where the arguments of the left seem to have failed.....it is seen as some lefty/green scam to steal other people's money.

Any carbon price must be used to lower other taxes so that the overall tax take is not increased (as Tesla says above). However, this was actually tried under Gillard - the tax free threshold was increased and income taxes were lowered by around $4 Billion per annum - but no one noticed, and it didn't cut through against Abbott/Barnaby's great big tax on everyone line.

In short, the energy sector is absolutely screwed. Not because of renewables (yes they are one part of the problem) but because the whole sector has become utterly un-investible due to the two major parties backing themselves into their respective ideological corners. There is ZERO chance of sensible policy before 2020. Most of the informed, intelligent rational people i meet  in the energy sector are pretty close to just giving up.

I'd be very interested if you could point me to an example, or indeed examples, of where you think sound policies are being implemented and are actually delivering positive results. And I mean that in a positive sense rather than challenging you to find an example (or examples). When I was involved (with the paper industry) I genuinely thought that we would have an ETS before 2000, but it never happened and we just seem to have been paralysed since then.

[Tangerine]

19 minutes ago, Harrison said:

 

Let's hope the NEM review provides a blueprint for reform, though it'll largely depend on all parties accepting the recommendations, even the unpalatable ones. Does the industry place much hope in this review? 

Dr Finkel appears to have a good grasp of the material, is consulting widely and is being provided useful ideas from a broad range of stakeholders. I have faith that he will make some strong, needed recommendations on NEM re-design ('NEM 2.0' as he calls it). So yes, fingers crossed.

It is at that point that the politicians will get involved........(that is where my optimism expires).

[Tangerine]

2 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I'd be very interested if you could point me to an example, or indeed examples, of where you think sound policies are being implemented and are actually delivering positive results. And I mean that in a positive sense rather than challenging you to find an example (or examples). When I was involved (with the paper industry) I genuinely thought that we would have an ETS before 2000, but it never happened and we just seem to have been paralysed since then.

I assume you are asking about energy policy only? There are some positive gas market reforms underway - to increase competition and pricing transparency. However, on the electricity side I don't think I have an example (maybe retail tariff reform).

My negative view is that politics is failing at the moment on a range of topics - the rise of populism, the inability to balance the budget, workplace reform, health costs increasing (ageing population) superannuation, tax concessions etc. etc. It feels like we've all collectively lost faith inexpert option, lost respect for politicians and they in-turn have lost all respect for each other leading to the incredibly partisan politics we see today.

[n i k o]

22 hours ago, Harrison said:

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. Bates didn't find that data questionable, he found the use of it questionable, as it wasn't in an operational form (purely a procedural quibble). Bates said it would have been fine had they put a simple disclosure on the bottom of the paper, but even that has been questioned, so it appears Bates is clutching at straws. He has had to downplay suggestions of misconduct and laments the misrepresentation of his claims, which is the real shame, but I think he knew what he was doing. 

Again, the data they used wasn't inappropriate. It has been found to be accurate. It was always accurate. It has been verified independently. It wasn't rushed. It also didn't effect political policies. One paper wouldn't be able to do that. I'll reiterate that there are multiple lines of evidence, an incredibly large volume of scientific study, in support of AGW.

Do you have any links to Bates downplaying his claims of misconduct? 

[jw1739]

57 minutes ago, Tangerine said:

I assume you are asking about energy policy only? There are some positive gas market reforms underway - to increase competition and pricing transparency. However, on the electricity side I don't think I have an example (maybe retail tariff reform).

My negative view is that politics is failing at the moment on a range of topics - the rise of populism, the inability to balance the budget, workplace reform, health costs increasing (ageing population) superannuation, tax concessions etc. etc. It feels like we've all collectively lost faith inexpert option, lost respect for politicians and they in-turn have lost all respect for each other leading to the incredibly partisan politics we see today.

I meant overseas policies and instruments on energy/climate change.

[Harrison]

29 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Do you have any links to Bates downplaying his claims of misconduct? 

To be clear, misconduct here refers to data manipulation. If by misconduct you mean not following protocol, then I stress (as above) that one cannot be sure that NOAA's internal procedures weren't followed, and if this is found to be the case then I suppose you could call it misconduct. But it wouldn't be misconduct in the data manipulation sense, which would be serious. Again, though, the data was verified and has been found to be accurate.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended

[n i k o]

55 minutes ago, Harrison said:

To be clear, misconduct here refers to data manipulation. If by misconduct you mean not following protocol, then I stress (as above) that one cannot be sure that NOAA's internal procedures weren't followed, and if this is found to be the case then I suppose you could call it misconduct. But it wouldn't be misconduct in the data manipulation sense, which would be serious. Again, though, the data was verified and has been found to be accurate.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended

I wouldn't call it manipulation of data as such but a use of data that is not entirely accurate and then using that data to affect political policies on an international scale. The first link you posted to me appears to have holes in the argument for elevated temperature readings during the period between 1998 and 2012. If the engine room of ships showed a more elevated sea temperature than the buoys then what does that say about the ability of either to be accurate. Aren't buoys suppose to be the most accurate form of taking sea temperature? And what protocols are taken to ensure the sea temerature readings of the ships are accurate? It seems this article has taken one research paper that decided to combine both buoy and ship readings to prove on one side of the arguement that sea temperatures have actually been on the rise over that period. To me it appears that this discrepancy is the crux of the problem and the fact that it has coincided with affecting political policies makes it a discussion point. 

Second article gives much clearer explanations of the events that happened during this process. I still question how the data was interpreted, as per my comments above, but the issue with Bates is much clearer now. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by n i k o

[Harrison]

10 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I wouldn't call it manipulation of data as such but a use of data that is not entirely accurate and then using that data to affect political policies on an international scale. The first link you posted to me appears to have holes in the argument for elevated temperature readings during the period between 1998 and 2012. If the engine room of ships showed a more elevated sea temperature than the buoys then what does that say about the ability of either to be accurate. Aren't buoys suppose to be the most accurate form of taking sea temperature? And what protocols are taken to ensure the sea temerature readings of the ships are accurate? It seems this article has taken one research paper that decided to combine both buoy and ship readings to prove on one side of the arguement that sea temperatures have actually been on the rise over that period. To me it appears that this discrepancy is the crux of the problem and the fact that it has coincided with affecting political policies makes it a discussion point. 

I don't have the technical expertise to debate temperature measurement methodologies with you, especially on a football internet forum. If you want to learn more about it there is no shortage of academic literature on the subject. The EE article states that there have been multiple independent studies that have confirmed the findings, so I suggest reading those.

It also states that the US State Department's climate talks negotiating team relies on an enormous amount of research and that the talks had been underway for four years when the paper was published, even that their proposed reductions had already been written. And a member is quoted as saying that he had never heard of the paper and that the allegation that it affected the Paris talks was a bizarre claim to make.

So no, it didn't affect political policies, and it wasn't their intention to do that by 'rushing the process', as the paper's publication process was longer than the average anyway. It is a discussion point for NOAA insofar as it relates to internal data archiving and handling. Whatever happens on that front is an issue for NOAA. 

 

[strider]

lol global warming is a myth, we're approaching an ice age