Loading ...
« Previous — Next »
Y2K and Global Warming, The Debate Rages
12 August 2007This bug is causing quite a bit of consternation in the Climate Science world. The realclimate.org blog called it “Another week, another ado over nothing.”
However some of the readers disagreed,
It isn’t “much ado about nothing”, it’s an embarrassment. I don’t usually agree with you, but I have always considered you to be a credible and honestly contrary opinion until you made that statement.
Do you think we can now be “99% certain” that 1938 was the warmest year in the last 1000 years, or are we still 99% certain that it was 1998. How certain are we of ANYTHING that Hansen says, now?
The problem with most skeptics isn’t that we don’t have open minds… we do. I know I do at least. The problem is the grotesque hubris we associate with scientists who are championing scientific conclusions that we intuitively know to be MUCH shakier than they are letting on. This only reinforces that.”
The last sentence is very important, “The problem is the grotesque hubris we associate with scientists who are championing scientific conclusions that we intuitively know to be MUCH shakier than they are letting on.” This data glitch was found by a outsider.
1934 beats out 1998 by 0.05ºC:
“( Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant.”
The last sentence is very important again: “None of these differences are statistically significant”. But the problem is these “not statistically significant differences” are being used to “prove” that global warming is taking place. If it is not significant then you can not say that there is a global warming trend. Because it is all in the margin of error.
I did my own curve fit (linear, y=mx+b) of the corrected data. The slope was 0.0048 deg/year, or in 100 years a .48 deg rise, the curve fit or R^2 value was a really bad .1. I usually don’t start looking at results till I get a R^2 value of .8 or better yet a .9 or higher. Then for fun I fit the data with a 5th order polynomial and my R^2 got to a .2. Still really rather bad. But you can draw some neat extrapolations from it, the curve slope shoots way up in the last 5 years indicating massive heating in the future for the earth, or maybe just the United States. Or maybe the concept of using a 5th order curve fit is stupid. Good data modeled bad.
Whether 1934 is the warmest year or 1998 to the .05C is not really my point. The point is it’s so close, the global warming crew are taking data that varies by less than 1C and extrapolating. 1934 vs 1998 is important if you are blaming the upward trend on industrial activity.
The graph shows the Y2K bug, see how it jumps up? Man that is SO OBVIOUS. Another interesting point of this graph is look at the wild variability of Annual Mean Temperatures from 1885 to present. The naked eye does not detect an upward trend. This is why the discussion hinges on degree changes in the point something range. Like .05C. Oh by the way, that data for >2000 comes way down when corrected, below 1934 data.
I ran a simple ANOVA on the pre 1950 data versus the post 1950 data. At the 95% confidence level there is no statistical difference. The pre 1950 does have an average value of 0.05 vs .196 for the post 1950 data, but given the sample and the variability of the sample and the number of samples (years of data we have) we can not say statistically there is a difference.
If you drop the confidence level down to 90%, you start to see the threshold of statistical significance. Start to. A text book on stats would say “there may be”.
Another comment:
The argument from “denialists” has been: We’re not sure about the data because there may be abnormal heating do to the artificial environments close to the temperature stations.
Here we have had literally billions of dollars put into research of climate data, and the only person who catches a glaring error is an outsider.
What if the change do (due) to asphalt or AC units had been more gradual? Should we have any confidence that anyone will be able to, much less want to, find the error?
If we can only detect the anomalies when there is an obvious spike in the data, and the only people that make corrections are “denialist”, doesn’t that shed ANY doubt in your mind on the integrity of the process?
Any at all?
even like . . . one Iota?
This person is commenting on another disturbing “find”. The weather stations are largely un-audited and a large number may be placed in violation of guidelines. For example the University of Arizona has their weather station in the parking lot on top of tar, the guidelines call for at least 100 feet of distance from tar. Because tar absorbs heats and re-radiates it back at night. Biasing any data, and if we are talking .05C to make or break an extrapolation it is important. I’d post the photo of the Arizona weather station IN THE PARKING LOT but it appears the site climateaudit.org is down, as in over loaded. That is how big this “much ado about nothing” has become. If the site is up the photo is below.
Now this find only relates to the US lower 48 states data, this find does not call in to question the data from the rest of the world. Indeed many people are pointing out the Artic Ice Sheet data is not affected by this error. And I agree (as if they needed my concurrence!). You can do a simple proportional calculation of land masses and extrapolate the world effect of this error to something like .3%.
What I’d like for you all come out of this is the understanding that if we are skeptical and question data and the conclusions it is healthy and we should not be called “deniers” and our intelligence level questioned.
The main point is that some of the basic data for climate study has not been entirely vetted and frequent errors have been found in data collect and data analysis.
If Al Gore has any creditability he would call for an open and full disclosure investigation of these questions. If calls us “deniers” then he is demagogue.
2 Responses to “Y2K and Global Warming, The Debate Rages”
August 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Here’s something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emmited into the atmosphere. Active volcanos represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteri a.blogspot.com
I’m not a scientist, I am a scuba diving instructor and know the figures above to be accurate, but in lay terms I wonder if sombody can explain to me why the main GHG water vapor is left out of the discussion? Is it because we can’t tax it? We are being hosed big time by those that are putting this nonsense before us. Remember, I lie repeated often enough is often accepted as the truth. Global Warming is theory based on flawed mathmatical models, and can’t stand up to the rigor of the scientific method.
Thanks, Jim P.S. Al Gore has no credibility. He refuses to debate the issue.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Sorry not a clue.
Re: Al Gore. I was being nice.
I am naturally suspicious, it seems the left is always trying to modify my behavior based on something other than marketplace economics.