Over at Watts Up With That? a new, soon-to-be-published paper is being discussed that provides analysis of the models used by climate “scientists” such as Dr. Mann and the rest of those guys at places like the East Anglia CRU. The paper doesn’t approach this issue from the question of whether or not the proxy data used by Mann, et al, is of sufficient quality or by noting that the original data was “adjusted” by Mann’s team and then destroyed. Rather, it looks at the statistical modeling used by Mann’s team to determine whether or not the model itself is consistent with the predictions it’s making given the data used.
Short answer: no. By applying a bayesian backcast method (well understood and widely used in this kind of analysis) they determined that the data does not produce the sharp spike of temperature now well-known as the “hockey stick.” Check out the graphs side-by-side at Mr. Watts’ site at that 1st link I’ve provided.
The paper itself is scheduled to be published in the next issue of the Annals of Applied Statistics but you can view the submitted paper here. (Download it here, too.)
In short, the authors found that the proxies used by Mann and analyzed with their backcast don’t predict the temperatures any better that a randomly-generated series of numbers. Furthermore, they don’t predict the steep incline Mann’s hockey stick shows. In their conclusion, they state, “[c]limate scientists have greatly underestimates the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions ahd hence have been overconfident in their models.”
Watts reports that certain AGW proponents are actively deleting any comments entered on their blogs and forums that so much as mention this paper which, as he says, “tells you it has squarely hit the target.”
A question of significance in this matter is whether Mann and his team knew about these flaws – or became aware of them amid the questioning of their findings – and simply decided not to reveal that knowledge. If so, then they have deliberately misrepresented the situation even while making greater demands for both public funding of their continued “research” and for policy changes affecting us all. This is the question being pursued by Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who is seeking access to files used by Dr. Mann at the University of Virginia. Mann received tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds to pursue his work and the question of whether he committed fraud by misrepresenting the truth in his applications for those funds needs to be answered. UVA is attempting to block Cuccinelli’s access to those records. Their attempt to have his request summarily dismissed failed and a judge heard arguments on the matter on Friday. He is scheduled to rule on the matter in the next 10 days.
Whether AGW is correct or not remains an open question, although given that historical records indicate temperatures at or exceeding today’s levels were seen prior to any industrial activity on man’s part it’s not looking good for the AGW team. What we can do about it – and whether we should do anything about it – is a question that can only be answered by real and accurate information about the situation. History is rife with examples of human interference in local environments that began with a woefully incorrect understanding of the situation as it was. Politics needs to be removed from this debate and the matter decided upon not with an eye toward bringing about a desired social state or curtailing practices some of us find offensive but with a goal of understanding the situation as it is. With that understanding, actions can be decided upon in as great a confidence as our limited abilities can provide.
August 21st, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
Academia, Environment, Human Interest, Politics, Science |
no comments
Dr. Phil Jones is one of the leading lights of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) believers and is a central figure in the Climategate scandal. (Head over to Watts Up With That? and read the copious coverage on the matter over there. Anthony Watts’ work in this area has been invaluable.) In what should be considered a world-shaking event, Dr. Jones has finally admitted what many, many AGW skeptics have been saying for years. Via Instapundit, let’s head over to SonicFrog for some details:
Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the Climategate scandal, has for the first time admitted that the Medieval Warm Period could have been warmer than the present day, flying directly in the face of the stupid Hocleystick Graph that caused so much of the Climate panic in the first place. From the BBC report, titled “Climate data ‘not well organised“:
Read up on the details over there but the crux is that Dr. Jones has admitted that the (ahem) science is not settled on whether or not the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was actually warmer than we are experiencing today. Now, why is that important? The MWP is a time period between roughly 950 AD and 1400 AD where the temperatures were above the 20th century average temp. More importantly, there’s a section of that time period – roughly 1100 AD through 1350 AD – where the temperatures might have been significantly higher than we have experienced over this past couple of decades when people were telling us we’re roasting the planet into oblivion.
This brings up 2 very important and, for AGW believers, uncomfortable questions. If Man’s industrial activity and CO2 emissions are what’s causing global warming to run out of control, then how did the temperatures get higher 600-1000 years ago when no such industry existed? And why is it of absolutely critical importance that we execute economy-crippling changes to reduce the global temperature when we have evidence that the planet not only survived higher temperatures just fine, but that civilization overall benefited greatly?
The premise for these questions rests entirely on a factual assessment of whether the MWP was warmer than we are today. What Dr. Jones is now, belatedly, admitting is that his teams’ fervent assertions that they had settled that debate years ago were wrong. The debate isn’t settled. The science isn’t settled. And, as a result, the 2 questions above remain open, remain legitimate, and remain critical to answer before we go wrecking our economic capacity. Of course, Dr. Jones and his colleagues have made it incredibly difficult to go back and apply actual science to the question of the MWP. They’ve already admitted to having destroyed pertinent data in this debate so I’m a bit skeptical of anything they now assert without some independent corroboration. But the honesty with which Dr. Jones, at least, is returning to the table is encouraging. He needs to understand that his actions over the past decade or so will take time to overcome but it’s moves like this that will help him out. And the rest of us along with him.
February 13th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
Environment, Human Interest, Politics, Science |
5 comments
There’s been some serious updates to the ongoing collapse of the AGW industry that have come so quickly I’ve not had time to bring them all up. If you’re interested in this stuff – and, given what the AGW set wants to do to your standard of living, you should be – you really need to be following Watts Up With That? both at their blog and on Twitter.
Read the posts from the past week over there and you’ll be treated to the following information very likely ignored or soft-pedaled by your local MSM:
- The IPCC report talking about how the glaciers in the Himalayas were all going to be melted away by 2035 – you know, based on peer-reviewed scientific consensus – was actually based on a single person’s completely unproven and untested commentary given in an interview on a phone call. Absolutely no peer review or any actual science was involved.
- The “scientist” behind that aforementioned report knew full well that the comment wasn’t peer reviewed. He used it in his report anyway for the express purpose of manipulating policy decisions in various governments. Read that again: he knew what he was saying wasn’t true and he lied to get your government to do things his way.
- Following on the revelation of those 1st two items, various climate research groups, NASA included, have been either deleting or “correcting” their own internal reports to remove references to that IPCC report.
- The UN predictions of increased natural disasters owing to global warming were based on more reporting by scientists who had not done the real science and which was withdrawn by those scientists because they felt the evidence wasn’t strong enough. Note that the withdrawal wasn’t considered important enough by the UN to actually change their own predictions.
- The IPCC report referenced in my 1st point above contained references to non-peer-reviewed papers published by the World Wildlife Fund, an organization who explicitly states that they don’t publish a peer-reviewed journal. That didn’t stop the IPCC from using their reports as support for their conclusions at all.
As I’ve repeated stated, we need the real science to determine what the correct move is in terms of climate change. That’s assuming any “move” is even possible. So-called “scientists” like these and the supporters of AGW theory who push for massive changes to our economy with no real evidence to back up their claims are damaging our ability to make rational decisions. We should stop with the hysteria and re-engage the scientific inquiry and we should do so as quickly as we can.
January 25th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
Blogging, Environment, Politics, Science |
no comments
Al Gore’s not the only AGW believer to make the statement that the Arctic would be an ice-free zone during the summer months very soon but he’s probably the most famous. He repeated that prediction at his speech at the Copenhagen climate conference yesterday and, according to the Times of London, got called out on it by the man whose work Gore quoted to make the prediction:
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Let’s be clear on what just happened: Gore’s office has just confirmed what many of us have been accusing him (and his supporters) of for several years. He’s been exaggerating the situation and the facts don’t back him up.
This is damaging in a number of ways. The rhetoric Gore and other supporters of the AGW theory offer isn’t being issued in a vacuum, it’s being talked about in order to generate support for seriously cutting back on power generation and consumption. It’s being talked about in order to generate support for massive transfers of funding from countries with high GDP’s to those with low GDP’s. In other words, they’re talking about it because they want to force a re-engineering of the economic and political landscape.
So when, on the heels of yet another speech castigating so-called “rich” countries for their policies and demanding they change, it’s demonstrated that they’ve overstated the danger to the point of lying about it… well, you don’t generate much support for change like that. Of course, there are still people who believe every syllable that drops from the mouth of Gore and those people are working feverishly to contract the economies of countries where people are depending on those economies to make their living.
From Gore’s exaggerations to the ClimateGate scandal, we can see that we’re not getting the kind of rational, scientific approach to understanding our climate mechanism like we need to in order to even consider actions one way or the other. So long as people like Al Gore and these “scientists” at the CRU at the University of East Anglia are more interested in getting us all to do things the way they want to than in the real science, this debate will remain far from settled. Try being really honest and pursuing real science for a switch, fellas.
December 15th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Environment, Human Interest, Politics, Science |
no comments
There is precious little that will bring a historian’s blood to a boil faster than the deliberate destruction of an irreplaceable artifact. I recall talking to a number of people when the Taliban set charges to the giant buddha statues at Bamiyan and blew them up. Literally no one I spoke to looked kindly on that action but the people whose eyes shot out fire and sparks over the matter were all people either involved in historical studies professionally or who, like myself, are students of history in general.
Watch the reaction of librarians or bibliophiles when someone sets up a book burning. Same deal.
In the field of science, there’s a similar maxim: never destroy data. Ever. True science is independently verifiable. In fact, it is only under the condition of such verification that any scientific principle is ever really confirmed and can, therefore, be used as evidence in further research.
I’ve already mentioned the scandal coming out of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia regarding the clear patterns of ethical misconduct there. A few days ago something new developed that should bring that matter home to everyone. According to the Times of London, the scientists at the heart of this whole matter have admitted to deliberately destroying the original data that they used to create their models and form their theories.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Grasp the significance of this, if you can. For a century and a half, data was collected by hand and laboriously committed to paper. (For the first 100 of those years, at the very least.) The collections of observations taken over literally lifetimes were brought together, “adjusted” through methods these “scientists” conveniently cannot provide, and then the original data was thrown into the garbage. It is impossible, now, to go back and re-examine that data. Decades of observations are lost to humanity, now, because someone at this “research” facility decided no one else needed to be looking over their collective shoulders.
Treason. There is no other word that captures this action. These scientists are traitors to their profession, traitors to the collective humanity they so nobly claim to be concerned for. The science, in spite of the AGW movement’s continued protests, is far from settled and now, regardless of which side of that debate you find yourself (if you have a side at all), the CRU has rendered it impossible to ever do so. What are we to do, now? Wait another 150 years to collect the data again? What could a more thorough and less political investigation of that data have shown us? What critical piece of information that will make the difference between making the right call or a disastrous mistake now be denied us for the rest of time?
Will we be able to make the right call, now?
Unfortunately no one can say any more. They can’t say because of this handful of so-called scientists who decided what the truth was – absent compelling science, I might add - and moved with deliberation to make sure their decision wasn’t questioned. The entire lot of them should be drummed out of the profession en masse and every single bit of their “science” in the field of climatology should be considered suspect, at best. Nothing they say can be held by reasonable people as credible and any organization that employs them for work in this field should be held in the same contempt. The CRU needs to open up its data files in their entirety for independent review if it ever hopes to regain a semblance of the authority they’ve squandered.
December 1st, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Academia, Environment, Politics, Science |
4 comments
The last 48 hours have seen a most amazing situation revealed regarding the highly controversial topic of global warming. As reported over at Watts Up With That? and continued in various locations around the ‘sphere, servers ar the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were hacked and a tremendous amount of data – files and e-mails – was taken and leaked to the Internet. The documents show that several of the leading lights of the global warming advocacy – such luminaries as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, and more – engaged in efforts to mask data that did not support their preferred conclusion and they knew full well that’s what they were doing. From John Hinderaker at Power Line has undertaken the project of going through all 62 megabytes (compressed) of data that was posted on the public FTP site. His initial assessment:
Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.
The emails I’ve reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax. On the contrary, they are true believers. I don’t doubt that they are sincerely convinced–in fact, fanatically so–that human activity is warming the earth. But the emails are disturbing nonetheless. What they reveal, more than anything, is a bunker mentality. These pro-global warming scientists see themselves as under siege, and they view AGW skeptics as bitter enemies.
Emphasis mine. I suppose that depends on what you consider a knowing and deliberate hoax. If, by that, you mean that the persons suggesting something know it to be false then I would agree – they’re clearly not of the opinion that AGW is a falsehood. But that only lets them off on the “hoax” part. The e-mails show their efforts to conceal data not supportive of their position are quite deliberate and they know full well they are hiding the facts and, thus, obscuring the truth. References are made in some of the e-mails to performing “tricks” on the data and adjusting it to “hide the decline” in temperature trends. Concern is expressed over the fact that trends aren’t matching their theoretical models and desires are expressed to find ways to “reduce” “blip[s]” in order to affect global mean temperatures.
This is not science when people deliberately seek to alter the data to support their desired outcomes. It’s politics, plain and simple and that’s not supposed to be what these people are engaging in. In fact, they are quite loud about their disdain for “politicizing the issue.” And yet, here we are with over 10 years of data showing them doing exactly that. Which raises the question in my mind of what they’ve managed to successfully “hide” and perform “tricks” on without being detected.
Were this to happen to some group of scientists expressing skepticism over AGW – that it was shown they were engaged in a pattern of data manipulation and obscuring of the facts in order to support their conclusions – I have no doubts that the reaction among the global warming faithful would be loud, continuous, and outraged. As well it should be – I’d likely be among those offended by such an event. When those who set themselves up as scientists interested in illuminating the facts so we can know the truth of the world engage in this kind of deception, we all suffer. The debate over what to do and when to initiate action suffers. And the outcome we hope for suffers. It’s inexcusable for people who call themselves scientists to do this. I wish the AGW advocates would consider it that way, too, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
It’s also inexcusable that so-called unbiased media would choose to virtually ignore such an event. Fox News didn’t ignore it, but you won’t find the story over at CNN or MSNBC. Why is that? Because those 2 organizations are in the tank for AGW groups, perhaps? You can’t prove that assessment false based on their silence on a story reported this widely in the ‘sphere and in the foreign press.
These scientists – and the East Anglia CRU, for that matter – have been shown to be untrustworthy in their science on global warming. What they report now can no more be considered conclusive (or even accurate) than any anonymous website on the Internet. Transparency in investigating this matter and a complete exposure of all of their data to widespread review are the only fixes for their credibility meltdown. I hope they move to make the repairs and do so quickly.
Update: Finally getting some wider coverage, this story’s now being reported in the Washington Post.
November 21st, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Environment, Politics, Science, The Media |
3 comments
So Al Gore got to tell his side of the story in a movie format and his information (flawed as I think it is) spawned a number of other flicks using the theme of anthropogenic global warming to repeat that side of the debate. As I’ve mentioned here on a few occasions, the science coming in is increasingly showing that assertion – AGW – is incorrect. Now, there a movie coming from the other side of this debate. Titled, “Not Evil Just Wrong” talks about “the true human cost of Global Warming hysteria”, among other things.
I think it’s time we hear from the other side of this debate in the same format as Gore has been allowed. Here’s the teaser vid from the Not Evil Just Wrong web site:
(Hat tip to Ed Morrissey from Hot Air who announced this in a tweet.)
August 14th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Environment, Politics, Science, The Media |
2 comments
Anthony Watts over at Watt’s Up With That? reports on a new study published in Natural Geoscience that shows conclusively that the models used by such groups as the UN’s IPCC that predict the dire temperature increases are flawed beyond any reasonable measure of reliability.
No one knows exactly how much Earth’s climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists’ best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth’s ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
Emphasis mine and it’s something I’ve emphasized before. The facts that have come forth from any true scientific effort show that CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not precede them. Simple chemistry shows this mechanism: heat a volume of water and it reduces the water’s ability to retain carbon dioxide dissolved within it. In short, if the oceans heat up, they outgas CO2 which is then present in the atmosphere in greater concentrations.
The study focused on the models used as applied to the historical record of the PETM and determined that, if the models’ assertions about CO2 being the driving factor of temperature increase that is claimed, the temperature increases would have been about half of what is shown to have happened. In short, the models can only account for half of the increase. Something else, not accounted for in the IPCC’s models, was at work to produce that temperature increase thus rendering the models suspect, at best.
We need to get this nonsense of the “we’ve-got-to-shut-off-all-the-lights-now” mentality out of the way and start talking about a reasonable path to cutting our dependence on fossil fuels, something sustainable that won’t cripple us. We can’t have that discussion so long as people are screaming in our faces that we’ve got to take action – action that will hamper our abilities to come up with real solutions – this immediate second.
July 16th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Economy, Energy, Environment, Politics, Science |
no comments
The blog WattsUpWithThat? has been quoted here at HoodaThunk? on a number of occasions. The consistent recourse to actual science over there is refreshing in the climate change debate, particularly since so few of the AGW viewpoint advocates do so. Today they feature a guest post by Steven Goddard that addresses the oft-proclaimed warming of the Arctic.
From time to time we hear that various places on earth have been “warming much faster than the rest of the planet – as predicted by “the models.” One of the places commonly mentioned in that list is the Arctic, based largely on 30 years of satellite data. Fortunately though, we are not limited by 30 years of satellite data, as the Danish Meteorological Institute has records going back to 1958 and GISSTEMP has even longer records.
Below is a visual comparison of DMI 1958 Arctic temperatures vs. 2009, showing that temperatures have hardly changed since the start of their record.
The charts shown in the post are quite revealing. The temperature readings, graphed out, show virtually no change whatsoever in the temperatures recorded in the Arctic in 1958 compared with this year, 2009. Goddard asks the pointed question, “So if the Arctic has warmed since 1979, how can it be [about the] same as 1958?” The answer is that between 1940 and 1980, temperatures in the Arctic dropped significantly. The truth of the matter is that the Arctic was warmer in 1940 than it is today. Add to that the fact that the Arctic didn’t completely thaw out last year as it had been predicted and you have to start wondering about the accuracy of those models people are clinging to when they start demanding all sorts of cap-and-trade schemes.
Kudos to the folks at WattsUpWithThat? for continuing to bring the rational to this debate.
May 15th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Environment, Politics, Science, The Media |
no comments
Via Power Line we have an interesting story about a recently released report on changes in weather extremes due to “climate change.” The story is posted over at Prometheus. In this article, written by Prof. Roger Pielke, an examination of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program report “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate” that pays attention to the actual science rather than the politically-motivated press release shows that several of the report’s more illuminating discoveries are being buried. The Professor’s article provides citations from within the report itself that shows some interesting omissions in the release. Such as:
1. Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation (pp. 46-50, pp. 130-131), there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms.
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.
It should be noted that Professor Pielke is a believer in AGW, by the way. Please feel free to read the Professor’s full article, as he goes into more detail about each of these points. What bothers me, and appears to bother the Professor, about reports like this is the fact that the facts get reported, with data, and yet get buried in the press releases and executive summaries that are distributed with the report. The concept of “scientific consensus” gets a lot of weight in the AGW circles, but the consensus sure doesn’t appear to be a consensus when the scientific data are actually assessed. As I’ve mentioned before, this is a complicated topic and we need to get it right. We can’t do that people are going out of their way to obscure the reality. I applaud the Professor for pointing this stuff out.
September 7th, 2008
Posted by
ricjames |
Environment, Human Interest, Politics, Science |
no comments
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter
