Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Have a nice vacation man! Be safe and catch you when you return.

 

Made a new blog post: Quality of U.S. Temperature Data The Climate Conspiracy

I'll post it here so you don't have to leave the site to read it:

Last night, in near freezing Louisiana temperatures, I was grilling some burgers on my Christmas present from my lovely fiance. As I saw the grill's thermometer read between 350 and 400'F it reminded me of this photo (courtesy of Anthony Watts, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., and SurfaceStations.org.)



It's a photo of a surface station in Hopkinsville, KY. See the white bird house looking thing hanging off the building? That's the thermometer. Notice that it comes off of a chimney of a brick house, it's just above a black asphalt driveway, that big white thing is an A/C compressor, and it's directly over a Weber grill.

The data from this thermometer becomes a part of the US Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) Station of Record for Hopkinsville, KY. Initially, this seems rather humorous. They are literally "cooking the books" at this station. But then it sinks in that this station data is being compiled in with the rest of the data from the country, and it is from these stations that we determine the change in temperature over time.

You may wonder if stations such as this one is unique. Sadly, it is not. All of the following graphics are available here.



















The thermometer next to the trash burning barrel is probably my favorite. And again, this all seems hilarious, but we must realize that this data from these stations are being used to convince legislators to pass laws that will, literally, tax almost every thing that we do. Not so funny any more, is it?

Anthony Watts has released a PDF report titled "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" You can download it here. I will give a brief overview of his report, and then cover some additional items.

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These surface stations are supposed to be setup in accordance with guidelines given by the NOAA's Climate Reference Network (CRN). The guidelines are available to see here.

In 2007 a project was initiated by Watts to visually inspect and document the quality of the surface stations. So what did they find? Some of the stations that they found are pictured above. We can see the thermometers located next to asphalt parking lots, located next to air-conditioner exhausts, located on brick buildings, located next to BBQ pits, located next to trash burning barrels, located on rooftops and near sidewalks. All of which absorb and radiate heat. These all influence the thermometer to read higher than it would otherwise.

Let's look at the numbers.

There are 1,221 active climate-monitoring surface stations in the USA. Of those 1,221 stations, 948 have been evaluated by Watt's Surface Stations project. Of these 948, 90% have been found to be very poorly sited. Poorly sited means that they are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures. This means the overwhelming majority of stations in the USA have been reporting bad data. (Please note that the USA data is generally considered the best data in the world. Yikes!)

Here is a graphical breakdown of the sites and their quality rating as described by the NOAA CRN.



As you can see, 90% of the surveyed surface stations have an error greater than or equal to 1.0 'C. This amount of error is greater than the amount of global warming we are supposed to have experienced from 1900-2000. Let me say that again: the amount of error is greater than the amount of warming we are supposed to have undergone in the last 100 years. The other 10% of the stations have been surveyed to show that they are capable of giving good data.

The next couple of graphics demonstrate the distribution of surface stations across the continental United States.





So, now we know that according to the NOAA CRN's guidelines, 90% of the surface stations in the USA are not capable of giving good data. They have errors greater than the amount of global warming we have supposedly experienced in the last one hundred years. It would be easy to assume that the other 10% give good data all the time.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Let's see why.

To collect surface station data site observers are given a card on which they are supposed to fill out the maximum and minimum temperatures each day. At the end of the month they are supposed to submit their card to National Climatic Data Center so that they can be compiled into the national database.

Well, what happens when the site observer doesn't work on a particular day? No readings occur. What happens when that observer is off because of a holiday? No readings occur. In fact, in Marysville, California, at Chico University Mr. Watts found that the temperature form for July 2007 had only 14 of 31 days completed. That is less than half a month's worth of data.

Missing data is not a rare phenomenon. Many sites have missing data. So even if a site is rated as capable of providing good data by the NOAA CRN, the data still must be read by someone. If that person is missing half the month, then you're not getting a significant quantity of good data.

So what happens when stations have missing data? From Watts' report: "[There exists] a data algorithm used by NCDC called FILNET, short for Fill Missing Original Data in the Network, that is used to “infill†missing data using interpolations of data from surrounding stations. After reading about it, I came to the conclusion that NCDC uses FILNET to create “missing†data where none was ever actually. measured."

From a government report on the matter:

Basically, if data is missing from a certain site then data is taken from near-by sites and adjusted to fit the missing data site. Wow.

So, we see that 90% of our stations are not capable of providing quality data, and then we see that sites which have missing data have data filled in from surrounding sites by the FILNET program. So even a site that is capable of producing good data, if data is not read for a day, could have bad data filled in for it by this FILNET program. This means that even the 10% of sites that are capable of providing good data are contaminated by the 90% of sites that have bad data.

So now that we see the quality of data from the stations is overwhelmingly poor, let's look a little more at the numbers and types of stations.

In April 1978 there were over 6,000 surface stations, and now we have dropped down to around 1,200. Of these stations, there are two main types. There are stations that are found in urban areas, which are more likely to be contaminated by local heat sources (see the photos above), and then there are stations in rural areas, which are less likely to be contaminated by local heat sources. Below is a great example of a well sited station in a rural location in Tucumcari, NM:



So, we know somewhere around 4,800 surface stations dropped out of monitoring temperatures. The vast majority of the stations that dropped out were rural stations. This is unfortunate because the rural stations are the ones that tend to give the most accurate data (because of less urban heat contamination.) Here is a graphic (courtesy of ICECAP) displaying the relative surface station dropout of rural vs urban locations.



Since the majority of stations that dropped out were rural ones, we can deduce that when the FILNET program is applied to stations that are missing data, data is more likely to come from urban (contaminated) locations than rural ones.

By now, I'm sure you're thinking "holy shit, can it get any worse?" Unfortunately it does.

After all the data is collected from the stations, and after missing station data is created by the FILNET program, adjustments are applied to “homogenize†the data (that is, data is compared to surrounding stations and adjusted accordingly) that impart an even larger false warming trend.

Below is an example of the "homogenized" data. The blue line is the "raw" (unaltered) data. The red line is the "homogenized" (altered) data. You can clearly see the data from 1880 has been altered to appear cooler in the beginning, and less cooler as time travels toward the present. This does two things: 1. it makes it appear the past was cooler, which makes our current warming look unique, and 2. it gives the data a steeper warming trend, which makes our current warming look more severe.



And lastly we can look at this graph released by the NOAA that demonstrates the differences between the raw and homogenized data sets. Note that this is a graph of differences, it shows the difference between the raw and homogenized data sets. Since this graph trends upwards, it means that the homogenized data sets have been reading (much) warmer than the raw data sets. It's funny how this curve is very similar to the curve we see showing a warming trend.



We see that NOAA’s adjustments to raw temperature data have generally been to increase, not decrease, recent temperatures. The net effect of NOAA’s adjustments is to increase the rise in temperature since 1900 by 0.5 'F.

So, after we consider all of these facts, let's answer our question of "how good is the quality of U.S. temperature data? The evidence overwhelmingly supports that is of poor quality. Do you think the U.S. temperature data should be used to write legislation?

 

Watchdog smacks Times for bogus climate claim ? The Register

1934 huh? Sounds familiar...

 

The December UAH global temperature anomaly is down...

December UAH global temperature anomaly – down by almost half Watts Up With That?

Here's a great graph showing the UAH satellite temperatures with their declining trend, despite rising CO2 levels. I'm getting this graph professionally printed and am going to frame it and put it on my desk.



Oh, I have a great little Christmas present too:

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly -- Mann et al. 326 (5957): 1256 -- Science

It must have killed Mann to publish this. The most anti-MWP person on the planet had to admit that all his previous garbage statistics and fake hockey sticks were poop and that the MWP existed.

Google Nachricht

Google Nachricht

 

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri - PhD in Railroad Engineering
Dr. Phil Jones - PhD in Civil Engineering
Dr. Michael Mann - PhD in Geology / Geophysics

These are all of your "climatologists"

Can anyone find a C.V. for Dr. Keith Briffa? My M.D. makes me just as qualified as Phil Jones and Rajendra Pachauri. LOL.

I love all these little things called "facts."

 

You are failing to see the context of this. It was a game-changer for Mann. Mann had previously released paleoclimate studies that literally tried to hide the MWP and LIA. It was basically a flat line with a negative slope until it hockey-sticked at the end.

Mann basically has single-handedly tried to convince the world that the MWP did not exist. It must have killed him to publish a paper speaking of the MWP, especially saying it was warmer (in some regions [in his words]) than our current temperatures. That is the exact opposite conclusion he had previously reached.

There are many dozens (hundreds) of other paleoclimate studies that show the MWP was as warm or warmer than current temperatures in many different parts of the world. Effectively, most parts of the world. If you had followed the other links I posted you would have seen that.

Also see here, after you've clicked and read the other links:

CO2 Science

 

I thought this was funny. People are nominating RealClimate as the "Best religious blog."

Best Religious Blog - The 2009 Weblog Awards

 

A topic that usually comes up in the great anthropogenic global warming debate is whether or not there is a consensus among scientists that human produced greenhouse gases were the primary driving force behind the most recent warming episode we experienced (1975 - 1998). (I think it's hilarious that when we discuss global warming we have to put the years in brackets, because it's been missing for quite a while now!)

The alarmist's argument:

The skeptic's argument:

So let's look at both of these arguments.

The Alarmists

We will start with the argument the alarmists use. They quote a 2009 poll in which 10,257 Earth scientists were invited to participate in an internet based poll which asked two questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Question 1 is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure basically everyone will agree that we experienced warming as we came out of the Little Ice Age (although 3 climatologists in their poll disagreed - I'd love to know why.)

The answers to question 2 were the main result that was discussed in the poll. I feel question two is very poorly worded. Does significant mean "an important contributing factor" or does it mean "the driving force"? Does significant mean that it contributes to the majority of climate change, or does it mean that it contributes a (minimally) quantifiable amount? I think that CO2 contributes to climate change, but I think we greatly exaggerate the amount. How would I answer that question?

Of the 10,257 people that were invited to participate, only 3,146 answered the poll. The vast majority of respondents were from the U.S., with the rest being from Canada and other countries. About 90% of respondents had PhDs, which is approximately 2,830. The rest had M.S. (masters) and B.S. (bachelors) degrees.

According to the poll, 97.4% of climate scientists (97.4% sounds impressive until you see that it means 75 people out of 77) who are actively publishing papers agree that CO2 is a significant contributing factor to changing mean global temperature. For most alarmists, this is all they need to read. They see this result, and they run with it. They think that this means that 97.4% of climate scientists agree that we are on a crash course to hell, all the worlds ice is going to melt, the polar bears will die, everyone will get malaria and HIV, and we will lose most of our land because of rising sea levels.

But it's not that simple. Do these 75 (97.4%) climate scientists think that we are undergoing catastrophic warming as shown in the IPCC reports? Or do they believe that the warming is marginally greater than that of natural variation? Do they think that CO2 is the sole factor contributing to warming? Or do they think that CO2 has contributed to a minor (but quantifiable) amount of warming? Do they think that our current warming is unmatched in the last 1,000 years? Or do they think prior times were warmer than this? Do they think that dendrochronology is a junk science? (As Dr. Ed Cook implied here.) Or do they think that it is an appropriate way to look at paleoclimate? Do they think solar irradiance was a major input or not?

The problem is the poll question is too simple. We can not infer the answers to any of the above questions from the poll. It operates on the principle that if you ask a vague enough question then you can prove whatever you want. This poll is as clever as a carnival fortune teller.

Let's look at what the climate scientist Keith Briffa thinks, and then we can further evaluate if there is really a scientific consensus. (I apologize for this long, poorly formatted email but this is how Dr. Keith Briffa wrote it. I didn't want to alter anything. You can access the original here. If you don't know who Keith Briffa is, he is one of the climate scientists involved with the ClimateGate scandal. There is a great article that speculates that he may be the whistleblower that leaked all of the ClimateGate emails and documents.)

In that very telling email we see at least four things: 1. that Dr. Briffa believes the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than it is today (which means our current warming is not unique, which means he believes natural variation is more than enough to account for our current warming), 2. that he is under pressure to manipulate his data to present a nice and tidy story of global warming, 3. that he does not agree with Dr. Michael Mann on which tree ring reconstructions are the best ones (note the lack of a consensus about certain data within the ClimateGate team), and 4. he believes that Mann has misrepresented the data before (about it cooling progressively over a thousand years.)

So how would he have answered the poll question? I believe he would have said that he thinks CO2 is a significant factor that contributes to changing global mean temperatures and therefore would be included in the 97.4%. But I don't think that he believes we are on a crash course to hell caused by global warming. So would it really be right for an alarmist to claim that he is part of a scientific consensus that believes in what they believe?

Next, we have to look at the poll's definition of a climate scientist, which is as follows: "respondents that listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." How many of those did they have that agreed? 75. If we look at just the U.S., that is about 1.5 climatologists per state! The "consensus" is just 75 climatologists!

It gets worse. At first glance we would be tempted to believe those 75 people are all climatologists, but we would be wrong. It is impossible to know who responded to the poll, but we can cast doubt on some of the responders qualifications by looking at some of the biggest players in the climatology game.

Let's start with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. He is the head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - they compile data that presents a picture of global warming and use it to try to convince the world's legislators that we are on a crash course to hell.) By the above definition he would be considered a climatologist. But his PhD is in Railroad Engineering.

We also know about Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State. He is the climate "scientist" that is infamous for publishing his hockey stick tree ring graphs that have been thourougly debunked multiple times. He's notorious for using horrible program code to present his data in widely distorted ways, he has bullied journal editors into not accepting skeptical climatology papers, and he has corrupted the peer review process. By the above definition he would be considered a climatologist, but his PhD is in Geology / Geophysics.

And we have [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt]Gavin Schmidt[/ame], who founded the CRU propaganda site RealClimate, credited as a climatologist. But his PhD is in Applied Mathematics. And we also have Dr. Edward Cook who has a PhD in Watershed Management. You gotta love what Dr. Cook thinks about his own field of study!

(Note: in no way am I down-playing Applied Mathematics, Geology, or Railroad Engineering, nor am I saying that they are unqualified to discuss climate change, but they technically aren't climatologists. I am merely pointing this out to demonstrate that the poll's definition of a climatologist is flawed.)

This leads us to the next problem with the poll. There is no way to audit the poll's results. We can't go through their data and see the names of the people who claim to be climatologists. We can't verify their credentials. We don't know if they actually exist. We don't know what kinds of papers they've published, which journals they've been in, if any, or anything else.

Lastly, an alarmist arguing that the are correct because a "scientific consensus" agrees with them is a logical fallacy known as an [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority]appeal to authority[/ame], in which it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

So, we have shown that the poll's questions were rather vague, that their definition of climatologist was rather vague, that we can't audit who responded to the poll, and that there is pressure put on climatologists to present a tidy picture of global warming (thanks ClimateGate!).

I'll leave it up to you to decide if you think that the poll shows that there is a consensus among climatologists about anthropogenic global warming. Personally, I feel that the poll was worthless and the questions were too vague to get anything useful from. Even most skeptics think CO2 has contributed to the recent warming period, just in very, very small amounts.

The Skeptics

The Petition Project is a petition that consists of (currently) 31,478 signatures all of which support this very concrete statement:

The statement behind this petition is strengthened by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) report. The NIPCC report is an 880 page book that demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change. The report is available for download here.

Of those 31,478 signatures from the petition, 9,029 are PhDs, 7,153 M.S.s, 2,585 M.D.s or D.V.M.s, and 12,711 B.S.s. These are staggering numbers. This petition has 10 times the number of people than the alarmist poll had. This petition has three times more PhDs than the alarmists poll had.

This petition is powerful because it backs a very specific statement, as quoted above. It is not vague, and it makes it very clear what the people who signed it believe. This is the opposite of the alarmist poll, because the poll was rather vague in asking what people felt about the anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases.

Also, this petition is powerful because people had to voluntarily go out of their way to sign it. They had to contact the Petition Project, fill out a form, and mail it in. For the alarmist poll, the population was contacted by the pollers and they were able to (much more easily) fill out a form on the internet without having to even leave their office.

Some criticisms of the petition project are the population that make up the signatures. Critics say that some of the people who have signed are not qualified to give their opinion on climate science. But at the same time they would let a railroad engineer head the IPCC. Let's look at a breakdown of the educational backgrounds of the signees and see why each educational background is important to understanding climate change.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The outline below gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of signatures in that particular area of study. The subjects in bold are the broad categories, and beneath them are a breakdown of the categories.

Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578)
a) Atmospheric Science (113)
b) Climatology (39)
c) Meteorology (341)
d) Astronomy (59)
e) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)
a) Earth Science (94)
b) Geochemistry (63)
c) Geology (1,684)
d) Geophysics (341)
e) Geoscience (36)
f) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (985)
a) Environmental Engineering (486)
b) Environmental Science (253)
c) Forestry (163)
d) Oceanography (83)

Computers and Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)
a) Mathematics (581)
b) Statistics (112)

Physics and Aerospace (5,810)
1. Physics (5,223)
a) Physics (2,365)
b) Nuclear Engineering (223)
c) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,818)
1. Chemistry (3,126)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)

Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture (2,964)
1. Biochemistry (744)
a) Biochemistry (676)
b) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,437)
a) Biology (1,048)
b) Ecology (76)
c) Entomology (59)
d) Zoology (149)
e) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)
a) Agricultural Science (296)
b) Agricultural Engineering (114)
c) Plant Science (292)
d) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering and General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
a) Engineering (7,280)
b) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
c) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)

Again, the numbers are staggering. There are 3,803 signees that specialize in atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. Compare that to the 75 that the alarmist poll had. Yikes

The Conclusion

I've presented all the facts and you are free to draw your own conclusions. This should give you plenty to think about the next time you hear an alarmist cry that the "consensus among scientists is that humans are causing global warming." Just remember that their consensus was 75 anonymous people who may have not even been climatologists, and remember that the questions from that poll were so vague that even skeptics could possibly answer "yes" to it.

 

This is pretty fantastic.

An article about arctic sea ice melting, the arctic ocean getting warmer, seals vanishing, and icebergs melting.

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. Watts Up With That?

Did I mention it was from 1922? So it occurred in the 1910-1940 warming period that has a slope identical to 1975-1998? Our warming isn't unique? OMG

 

If anyone finds themselves bored this morning:

The head of the Met Office defending his poor weather predictions, and trying to answer why they all got raises despite all of their predictions being so horrible.
BBC News - Chief defends Met Office record


These next two links are rather great. They look at the last 100-150 years of media reporting on weather. Talking about climate change, ice ages, warm periods, etc. Really fantastic and very interesting.
BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice
150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times | NewsBusters.org

 

You've really got to appreciate the "science" here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/in-depth/ask/julia-slingo.pdf

The explanation by their chief scientist, Prof. Julia Slingo, of the proof that CO2 causes global warming.

The question put to this “scientist” is:

“How do you know CO2 is responsible for the change in climate and can you prove it? And how do we know that CO2 released is from human activities?”

Her response comes down to this:

“We are now rapidly approaching 390 parts per million which means it’s been a 40% increase. Most of that increase has happened in the last 50 years. And if we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it’s hard to believe that if you increase it by 40% you’re not going to do something to the temperature of the planet.”

So, it’s “hard to believe” that it won’t “do something” – there’s scientific rigor for you!

 

Lame-o.