I blogged earlier about the Berkley study which was hyped as the final refutation of Global Warming skepticism. Well, Anthony Watts, who has had access to the study for some time now has blogged on the much hyped paper:
Berkley Surface Temperature Project Puts PR Before Peer Review.
I am gratified to see Watts express early on some of the same concerns I had with the paper. Watts tells the story behind the scenes so to speak about how this whole thing was turned into a planned major media event where they forged ahead in spite of warnings about the quality of the data. Just as I thought, the data used was seriously flawed, though not in the way I thought it might be. In this case the uncertainty of the data is so high, 70% of the stations with an uncertainty of almost five degrees, that it is useless for reaching the conclusions arrived at.
There is another article, a polemic, which puts the paper in terms easily understood by the layman. It also addresses the straw-man argument which was advanced by the media. Watt's touched on that.
The Death of Global Warming Skeptics, Or The Birth of Straw Men?
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming.
I just finished listening for about and hour to a fascinating discourse given by Professor Murry Salby given in Australia:
I sat there wishing I had access to the graphs and charts he kept referring to. This was basically the same presentation of a paper he gave at an international climate conference which apparently has caused some stir which hasn't been well reported on. What happens is Prof. Salby breaks down the constituent compositions of Carbon dioxide world wide, including two of its isotopes and arrives at Mankind's contribution to the assumed problem. Salby estimates that contribution at approximately 5 out of about 160 gigatons of CO2 emissions world wide annually.
See where this is heading? As if this weren't enough he further mentions that the chief global areas of CO2 emissions are undeveloped areas, including...drum roll...Africa, as I mentioned in another post. So mankind contributes very little of the emissions and net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere world wide, but it doesn't stop there. The professor further tells us that his analysis shows that the relationship of atmosphere in the atmosphere to temperature is the opposite of what the "settled science" alleges. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are driven by temperature, not the other way around.
This presentation is worth the effort to listen to it.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
My, my:
Good for him! If that is where his research leads him by all means
he should reverse his position. I have no beef with that and I am
looking forward to going over his work if I can get a copy when it
finally reaches publication. and that is the funny part; we've
got all of this hype going on with the research being touted and then
the repentant global warming skeptic returning to the fold leading up
to the crescendo of the release of the report itself via publication,
probably in one of the more prominent journals. I did notice
one little gem buried on down in the article which many probably
missed. ""Global
warming is real. Perhaps our results
will help cool this portion of the climate debate."
Well, I don't recalling writing that global warming isn't real.
Added to that I don't recall many of the prominent folks in the
skeptic community saying so either. Global warming is
real, all we have to do is look around us to see it. History
records ice floes and freezing over of the Hudson River. We
don't see that anymore. A passage through the Arctic Ocean, the
famed Northwest Passage, has opened up for the first time in my
life. Temperature and weather conditions have been warmer, with
the exception of the last ten years, than earlier in my fifty-five
years of life. I'm not idiotic enough to deny that and I
certainly haven't met another skeptic who is. Well, Richard
Mueller, by his own admission, was. So I guess I stand
corrected.
No, where we skeptics are coming from is that we question both the
extent and proposed cause of the warming. So far I don't see
anything in those sensational press releases and stories to make me
change my mind.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Berkley Study
Today an announcement was made of a new study from Berkley:
Global Warming Confirmed By Independent Study.
Before going on to the study itself I have an issue with the BBC's header. One of the myths promoted by Global Warming activists is that skeptics are global warming deniers that we deny any warming has occurred. That is patently untrue on its face. Oh, I don't doubt there are a few folks who do, but most of us in the "denier" community accept that there has been warming over the long term. Where we beg to differ is as to the extent and cause. Those two issues go to the heart of the matter and are why a number of prominent scientists are jumping ship. We contend that the research is sloppily or even fraudulently done and does not form a reliable foundation upon which to base policy.
First, let me point out that the study is being prematurely reported on since it hasn't been peer-reviewed and published yet, the claimed gold standard for acceptance by the establishment. The it is being so widely trumpeted tells me that the fix is in on that score and they just can't wait to publicize what they think will be a refutation of us skeptics. That the ending of the articles calls for an "apology" on our part to Dr. Jones and his climate change colleagues is telling as to the whole purpose of the exercise in the first place, all denials on that score not withstanding.
Since it's not been published up to this point all we really have to go on are the purported conclusions of the study, that we skeptics are now rebutted. there is nothing on the exact methodology used to gather data and arrive at their conclusions. Where did they get their data? Was it Hadley CRU's data? Did they go out and collect the raw data from the stations themselves? We are not told in the article how the data was collected. Since the Hadley CRU has admitted the raw data has been destroyed and only their "adjusted" data is available, use of that data on the part of the Berkley team would indicate a lack of seriousness in addressing the issue since they would only replicate CRU's conclusions by default.. Unfortunately we have to wait for the publication of the research to get our answer to that question.
CRU Data Loss Not An Accident.
For those who are new to the study of global warming CRU and NASA collect temperature data from thousands of weather stations around the world. In theory they take that data and compute a global mean or average temperature for days, months and the year. But that is not what happens in practice. Instead the data is changed, or "adjusted" to conform to what the scientists think it should be. Various justifications are used for the "adjustments," change in weather station locations, recalibration of equipment and installation of new equipment. This is done in the name of consistency of data. Steve McIntyre has noted that more often than not the raw temperature data is revised upwards in the case of recent data.he has also noted a history of multiple revisions of temperatures before 1960 downwards.
The effect of such revision of the raw data can be noted by looking at the graph given as evidence in the BBC article. for sake of reference an anomalous cold year in the late nineteenth century, 1880, is set as the standard for a "normal" global temperature. That year's average is the standard against which warming and the rate of warming are judged. When we look at the graph what sticks out is that the year 1960 appears to be the "normal" since it is the only one which firmly sits on the zero temperature deviation line. 1880 is about .3 of one degree below normal. With 1880 being the definition of a "normal" global average temperature it should be on the zero line. That would give us a very different picture than what global warming advocates want us to have as to the global temperatures and rate of increase. I won't state the obvious here.
we are also informed that the new study refutes the contention of skeptics that the urban heat island effect is a significant factor in the apparent rise of temperatures in the data. For those new to this the heat island effect is the contention on the part of those who question the data that the change in urban environments and building materials through the years has skewed the actual temperatures upwards over time. Materials, such as asphalt absorb heat and then radiate it into the surrounding local atmosphere. Anyone who's ever been in the middle of an asphalt parking lot on a hot day can testify anecdotally to the truth of that effect. Global Warming activists have contended for years that such a phenomenon is minimal and irrelevant. We'll have to wait until formal publication to see how they arrive at that conclusion in this study. I do find it ironic, however, that the BBC places a picture in the story which proves one of us skeptics' contentions, that weather stations are often now placed in environments which artificially drive up the temperature readings. There is no way that temperature station sitting right in an airport and within proximity of jet exhaust is recording anything other than temperatures skewed upwards. Sadly, that weather station isn't unusual; it is far more common than it should be.
So in conclusion, what we have here is a sensationally reported on study which hasn't even been peer-reviewed and published yet. It is more than likely based on seriously flawed data to begin with, though we are going to have to wait for publication to find out. It is reported to come to conclusion which may not be justified by the data and methodology of the research. Again, we are going to have to wait on its publication to find out. Yet, it is being trumpeted by the climate science community and the media as a definitive refutation of skeptics. Since I can't afford the expensive subscription prices for the journals it is likely to be published in, I'm going to have to wait for Steven McIntyre or Anthony Watts to review the published piece when it comes out to find out whether I'm spot on or not.
Global Warming Confirmed By Independent Study.
Before going on to the study itself I have an issue with the BBC's header. One of the myths promoted by Global Warming activists is that skeptics are global warming deniers that we deny any warming has occurred. That is patently untrue on its face. Oh, I don't doubt there are a few folks who do, but most of us in the "denier" community accept that there has been warming over the long term. Where we beg to differ is as to the extent and cause. Those two issues go to the heart of the matter and are why a number of prominent scientists are jumping ship. We contend that the research is sloppily or even fraudulently done and does not form a reliable foundation upon which to base policy.
First, let me point out that the study is being prematurely reported on since it hasn't been peer-reviewed and published yet, the claimed gold standard for acceptance by the establishment. The it is being so widely trumpeted tells me that the fix is in on that score and they just can't wait to publicize what they think will be a refutation of us skeptics. That the ending of the articles calls for an "apology" on our part to Dr. Jones and his climate change colleagues is telling as to the whole purpose of the exercise in the first place, all denials on that score not withstanding.
Since it's not been published up to this point all we really have to go on are the purported conclusions of the study, that we skeptics are now rebutted. there is nothing on the exact methodology used to gather data and arrive at their conclusions. Where did they get their data? Was it Hadley CRU's data? Did they go out and collect the raw data from the stations themselves? We are not told in the article how the data was collected. Since the Hadley CRU has admitted the raw data has been destroyed and only their "adjusted" data is available, use of that data on the part of the Berkley team would indicate a lack of seriousness in addressing the issue since they would only replicate CRU's conclusions by default.. Unfortunately we have to wait for the publication of the research to get our answer to that question.
CRU Data Loss Not An Accident.
For those who are new to the study of global warming CRU and NASA collect temperature data from thousands of weather stations around the world. In theory they take that data and compute a global mean or average temperature for days, months and the year. But that is not what happens in practice. Instead the data is changed, or "adjusted" to conform to what the scientists think it should be. Various justifications are used for the "adjustments," change in weather station locations, recalibration of equipment and installation of new equipment. This is done in the name of consistency of data. Steve McIntyre has noted that more often than not the raw temperature data is revised upwards in the case of recent data.he has also noted a history of multiple revisions of temperatures before 1960 downwards.
The effect of such revision of the raw data can be noted by looking at the graph given as evidence in the BBC article. for sake of reference an anomalous cold year in the late nineteenth century, 1880, is set as the standard for a "normal" global temperature. That year's average is the standard against which warming and the rate of warming are judged. When we look at the graph what sticks out is that the year 1960 appears to be the "normal" since it is the only one which firmly sits on the zero temperature deviation line. 1880 is about .3 of one degree below normal. With 1880 being the definition of a "normal" global average temperature it should be on the zero line. That would give us a very different picture than what global warming advocates want us to have as to the global temperatures and rate of increase. I won't state the obvious here.
we are also informed that the new study refutes the contention of skeptics that the urban heat island effect is a significant factor in the apparent rise of temperatures in the data. For those new to this the heat island effect is the contention on the part of those who question the data that the change in urban environments and building materials through the years has skewed the actual temperatures upwards over time. Materials, such as asphalt absorb heat and then radiate it into the surrounding local atmosphere. Anyone who's ever been in the middle of an asphalt parking lot on a hot day can testify anecdotally to the truth of that effect. Global Warming activists have contended for years that such a phenomenon is minimal and irrelevant. We'll have to wait until formal publication to see how they arrive at that conclusion in this study. I do find it ironic, however, that the BBC places a picture in the story which proves one of us skeptics' contentions, that weather stations are often now placed in environments which artificially drive up the temperature readings. There is no way that temperature station sitting right in an airport and within proximity of jet exhaust is recording anything other than temperatures skewed upwards. Sadly, that weather station isn't unusual; it is far more common than it should be.
So in conclusion, what we have here is a sensationally reported on study which hasn't even been peer-reviewed and published yet. It is more than likely based on seriously flawed data to begin with, though we are going to have to wait for publication to find out. It is reported to come to conclusion which may not be justified by the data and methodology of the research. Again, we are going to have to wait on its publication to find out. Yet, it is being trumpeted by the climate science community and the media as a definitive refutation of skeptics. Since I can't afford the expensive subscription prices for the journals it is likely to be published in, I'm going to have to wait for Steven McIntyre or Anthony Watts to review the published piece when it comes out to find out whether I'm spot on or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)