Political swings and roundabouts

From the most recent Nature Climate Change, editorial:


Political swings and roundabouts : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research

If datasets are not reproducible, what does it say about the quality of the data?

I wish the true believers would stop saying the climate sciences are not political:

The IPCC and the politics of anticipation


That is attributed to footnote 1 which is this:

Climate-panel chief Hoesung Lee wants focus on solutions

It appears to me that more research will kill their consensus, so they are pretending the science is settled...

This is also in the article:

Lord of Planar said:

From the most recent Nature Climate Change, editorial:

Perhaps the bigger question mark hovering over the act is what would qualify as replication. Many datasets are essentially not reproducible in practice: consider satellite data for a given period, or experiments over extended periods of time that are financially and logistically prohibitive to repeat. So perhaps only the data analysis must be replicated — but then to what degree of similarity must the findings correspond? Indeed, politically controversial findings that have repeatedly passed the test of replication, and moreover verification using alternative methods, have remained contested at a political level: the 'hockey stick' graph — showing how high recent temperatures are compared with the past 2,000 years — is perhaps an exemplar.
​

Political swings and roundabouts : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research

If datasets are not reproducible, what does it say about the quality of the data?

Click to expand...

About data quality? Not much.

Lord of Planar said:

I wish the true believers would stop saying the climate sciences are not political:

The IPCC and the politics of anticipation

Following the Paris Agreement of December 2015, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced a new direction for the panel's assessments, moving from the attribution of causes and the detection of impacts towards solutions to address climate change.
​

That is attributed to footnote 1 which is this:

Climate-panel chief Hoesung Lee wants focus on solutions

It appears to me that more research will kill their consensus, so they are pretending the science is settled...

This is also in the article:

If so, what does this mean for the conduct of scientific assessment? Oliver Geden and others have described the positioning of BECCS in RCP2.6, and the failure to adequately explain its implications to policymakers, as a failure of scientific advice and assessment. While BECCS may help us achieve 2 °C targets, it would involve massive displacements of land and people, with global implications for food supply, land rights, and environmental justice8. Indeed, resistance to emerging BECCS strategies is beginning to mobilize.
​

Click to expand...

600 Million Years – Climate Change

joG said:

About data quality? Not much.

Click to expand...

I remember one time, looking at the actual ocean bottom sample proxies used to make the hockey stick. Those ships taking the samples had hundreds of good ocean bottom core samples, but Mann choose the ones that gave him what he wanted. Other nearby proxies were all over the place. You would think the proxies would have some consistency, but there wasn't any.

Lord of Planar said:

I wish the true believers would stop saying the climate sciences are not political:

The IPCC and the politics of anticipation

Following the Paris Agreement of December 2015, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced a new direction for the panel's assessments, moving from the attribution of causes and the detection of impacts towards solutions to address climate change.
​

That is attributed to footnote 1 which is this:

Climate-panel chief Hoesung Lee wants focus on solutions

It appears to me that more research will kill their consensus, so they are pretending the science is settled...

This is also in the article:

If so, what does this mean for the conduct of scientific assessment? Oliver Geden and others have described the positioning of BECCS in RCP2.6, and the failure to adequately explain its implications to policymakers, as a failure of scientific advice and assessment. While BECCS may help us achieve 2 °C targets, it would involve massive displacements of land and people, with global implications for food supply, land rights, and environmental justice8. Indeed, resistance to emerging BECCS strategies is beginning to mobilize.
​

Click to expand...

I look forward to improving coordination among the three working groups. This will improve the efficiency of writing the synthesis report and above all make it more meaningful. ...- Hoesung Lee

Click to expand...

uh-oh. I guess that means Hoesung Lee officially made changing the WG reports to make 'em look more like the SPMs de rigueur.

Sorry for fouling up your thread with this but I couldn't resist ...

Lord of Planar said:

I remember one time, looking at the actual ocean bottom sample proxies used to make the hockey stick. Those ships taking the samples had hundreds of good ocean bottom core samples, but Mann choose the ones that gave him what he wanted. Other nearby proxies were all over the place. You would think the proxies would have some consistency, but there wasn't any.

Click to expand...

Oceans, trees, ... whatever's necessary. Proxies are fungible.

bubbabgone said:

uh-oh. I guess that means Hoesung Lee officially made changing the WG reports to make 'em look more like the SPMs de rigueur.

Sorry for fouling up your thread with this but I couldn't resist ...

Click to expand...

Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

Excellent post, both informative and interesting to read, and the cartoon was SO
appropriate! :thumbs:

One thing that captured my interest was that the "understandability" of the information given to the public scored so low in readability. Since most of us do not have PHD's in climate science, it seems to have been deliberately done that way, for reasons suspected but still unproven, which does cause skepticism and distrust among those of us who will be expected to foot the bill with our personal money for the cost of mitigating the presumed damage to our planet from excess CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter who is causing the problem! :bs:

One problem with that is the fact that China and India, to use two examples, will not be on board for years, but they are currently two of the biggest CO2 emitters with their building of lots of new coal-burning facilities as we speak! As far as I know, the wind patterns on this globe are the same as they have been for millions of years, so why the sudden rush now to start collecting money as soon as possible? WTH!!? *rhetorical question* :mrgreen:

polgara said:

Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

Excellent post, both informative and interesting to read, and the cartoon was SO
appropriate! :thumbs:

One thing that captured my interest was that the "understandability" of the information given to the public scored so low in readability. Since most of us do not have PHD's in climate science, it seems to have been deliberately done that way, for reasons suspected but still unproven, which does cause skepticism and distrust among those of us who will be expected to foot the bill with our personal money for the cost of mitigating the presumed damage to our planet from excess CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter who is causing the problem! :bs:

One problem with that is the fact that China and India, to use two examples, will not be on board for years, but they are currently two of the biggest CO2 emitters with their building of lots of new coal-burning facilities as we speak! As far as I know, the wind patterns on this globe are the same as they have been for millions of years, so why the sudden rush now to start collecting money as soon as possible? WTH!!? *rhetorical question* :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Right ... that's no accident.
The only thing that approaches readability is the part that the Government dictates line by line so that the Science sections can know what they're supposed to say.

It's not impossible that they realize that their Climate allies are not enough to suppress the truth and they're getting anxious.
Every day there are more and more studies challenging the BS.
I just saw one calling out the Antarctic fear mongering.

Lord of Planar said:

From the most recent Nature Climate Change, editorial:

Perhaps the bigger question mark hovering over the act is what would qualify as replication. Many datasets are essentially not reproducible in practice: consider satellite data for a given period, or experiments over extended periods of time that are financially and logistically prohibitive to repeat. So perhaps only the data analysis must be replicated — but then to what degree of similarity must the findings correspond? Indeed, politically controversial findings that have repeatedly passed the test of replication, and moreover verification using alternative methods, have remained contested at a political level: the 'hockey stick' graph — showing how high recent temperatures are compared with the past 2,000 years — is perhaps an exemplar.
​

Political swings and roundabouts : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research

If datasets are not reproducible, what does it say about the quality of the data?

Click to expand...

LOL.

Having a historical temperature record is by definition not reproducible. And it doesnt impune the quality of the dataset at all.


Hilarious.

Lord of Planar said:

I wish the true believers would stop saying the climate sciences are not political:

The IPCC and the politics of anticipation

Following the Paris Agreement of December 2015, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced a new direction for the panel's assessments, moving from the attribution of causes and the detection of impacts towards solutions to address climate change.
​

That is attributed to footnote 1 which is this:

Climate-panel chief Hoesung Lee wants focus on solutions

It appears to me that more research will kill their consensus, so they are pretending the science is settled...

This is also in the article:

If so, what does this mean for the conduct of scientific assessment? Oliver Geden and others have described the positioning of BECCS in RCP2.6, and the failure to adequately explain its implications to policymakers, as a failure of scientific advice and assessment. While BECCS may help us achieve 2 °C targets, it would involve massive displacements of land and people, with global implications for food supply, land rights, and environmental justice8. Indeed, resistance to emerging BECCS strategies is beginning to mobilize.
​

Click to expand...

Listen carefully, and we are most certainly saying that science denial is political.

Funny that the fact that denial is political doesnt seem to bother you one whit.

In other climate news . . .

Ridiculae
[h=1]Colorado Climate March Postponed Due to Heavy Snow[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Breitbart – The People’s Climate March rally in Colorado Springs, scheduled for April 29th, was postponed due to heavy snowfall and treacherous conditions. Winter Blast Putting Climate Protests On Ice In Colorado … Organized by groups seeking to ban the production of oil, natural gas, and coal, including 350.org,…

polgara said:

Good morning, bubba. :2wave:

Excellent post, both informative and interesting to read, and the cartoon was SO
appropriate! :thumbs:

One thing that captured my interest was that the "understandability" of the information given to the public scored so low in readability. Since most of us do not have PHD's in climate science, it seems to have been deliberately done that way, for reasons suspected but still unproven, which does cause skepticism and distrust among those of us who will be expected to foot the bill with our personal money for the cost of mitigating the presumed damage to our planet from excess CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter who is causing the problem! :bs:

Click to expand...

Hi Polgara. It's funny you should mention that, because I'd recently noticed the same thing. Kind of. In a recent discussion with Bubba I did some reading of the First and Second Assessment Reports, and I noticed that the way they were written seemed less professional and more qualitative than the latest one.

For example, from the Second Assessment Report (section 8.6):

While that's certainly easy enough to read, there's a whole lot of unquantified "likelies" and "probablies" in there.

Even in the far more carefully-written recent reports, we regularly see contrarians on this forum and elsewhere taking any and every quantification of uncertainty they can quote-mine and equating them to mere speculation and guesswork. Can you imagine the field day they must have been having in the 1990s with the even more open-ended phrasing such as above?

In fact I imagine that many if not most scientists would have been uncomfortable with such open-ended phrasing too. So where should scientists draw the line, in communicating the summaries of research into a system as complex as global climate to policymakers and the public, between readability and unambiguous precision? As you've helped illustrate, it seems to be a damned if they do and damned if they don't scenario; contrarians will either accuse them of fudging through imprecision, or obfuscation through 'unreadability.' But at least the latter approach leans toward the side of scientific precision.

And really, with a little effort and acclimatization to that kind of writing, the later reports aren't that difficult to understand - the greater precision is actually more informative in the long run.