Slashdot Mirror
Climate Data Re-examined (updated)
An anonymous reader writes "An important paper that re-examines historical climate data was published on 28 October in the respected journal Energy & Environment. (The paper is also available here.) According to an article in Canada's National Post, the paper shows that a "pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." (USA Today also has a story.) This paper will undoubtedly be controversial and should stir a vigourous data review." Update: 11/05 14:54 GMT by T : newyhouse points out a similarly contrarian 2001 Economist article by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist .
Nooooooo!
Now I don't want to respond to the article's claims, since that'll only spark a flame war I don't want to fight but:
Only in Canada does one see a graph with a flat line then sharp spike and instantly think "Oooo, a hockey stick!"
This just cracks me up because it is absolutely true of most of my Canadian relities, they are just nuts over hockey and I'm sure this doesn't strike any of them as the least bit odd comparison.
It however doesn't mean that we should not pollute.
A friend of mine is prepairing a PHD in geology.
He often climbs on top of the Mont Blanc (4807m) where he analyzes the ice cap.
He found out that ther chemicals that impregnated the ice are similar only to the ones which emanates from the General Motors factories, in Detroit, US.
There is a serious issue, there.
It is not because it won't make rain more that it is not a bad thing.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Questions:
1. Who are these guys. There are no affiliations listed and the research sponsor is not listed.
2. MBH98 is not the only paper. It was one of the first ones. After that more detailed research was done and it did not refute any of the claims.
3. Is the ice melt in the arctic a figment of my imagination?
4. Is the retreat of South American Glaciers a figment of my imagination?
5. Why doesn't NOAA put all the data for public consumption so that anyone can see who is right and who is wrong?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
About twenty years ago, there was a conference on global warming held at Caltech. The gist of the results presented was that adding energy to the atmosphere seemed to make it more chaotic. That doesn't imply local warming must occur, but rather that the weather becomes more unpredictable. I think we're seeing that now in the data.
The "hockey stick" graph has been roundly criticized for years -- and yes, legitimate scientists criticize it, not just "neo-cons" or whatever.
Unfortunately there is immense political pressure placed upon anyone who says something that could be seen as weakening the Kyoto protocol or the "global climate consensus." I expect the authors of this paper will see quite a lot of heat about this.
This is a shame, because the fact that the "hockey stick" graph is flawed absolutely does not imply that human-influenced global warming isn't a problem! Sure, people may misuse these results to argue that global warming is somehow disproven, but the potential misuse of a result is no reason to suppress it. On the contrary, pressuring people to keep quiet about their findings will only hurt the credibility of the entire field in the long run. So it is very good to see that this is published.
And remember -- there is no "final word" in science. The most vital element of science is results can be tested and disproven. Nothing is above criticism, including the hockey stick graph, this paper, and any other paper written about climate change or any other scientific subject. That is what science is all about.
I wonder if the results are skewed because of mistakes, or if the numbers have been wilfully embellished. Neither would surprise me: almost every lobby group for every side of every issue, from Greenpeace to the car industry lobby, have been known to juggle the books a little in order to support their own beliefs. In some cases, outright fraud has taken place.
What scared me about Kyoto is not so much the conclusion that was drawn, nor the way scientists had arrived at that conclusion, but the zealous belief of many governments in these conclusions. In Europe, scientists or governments (the US) who were sceptical about the Kyoto paper became the brunt of scorn and vilification in the media. It again showed how deeply environmentalists have become entrenched in the decision-making bodies of government... it reminds me of the case where two scientists were fired from the Dutch government environmental agency, for publishing reports that proved the official line on acid rain was wrong.
The reactions to this article will tell us if the political climate has changed... if the policy-makers are still only accepting opinions that fit their own world view, or if we have a more open climate where scientific discussion rather than dogma holds sway.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Taking this referenced paper as being on the mark, do look at their corrected temperature graph. One can't say that the recent warming has been unprecedented based on that graph, but you could claim that there's been nothing like it in 500 years.
...) as a good reason to dispute the need for CO2 emission controls. Yet they would still (IMO) be misguided. As evidenced by the hole in the ozone layer, human industrial activity can have significant long-term effects on the global environment. Given that we only have the one planet, it seems only good sense that we should be cautious when it comes to activity that has the potential to seriously change the environment.
It seems almost certain that this news will be welcomed by certain governments (US, Australia,
The warming trend in the last 100 years may have very little to do with industrial emissions - but as yet we can't tell. That there is a correlation indicates we should err on the side of caution: if it is indeed a matter of causation, then we're essential pissing on our own future.
Regardless of quality of life issues, it makes sense as an economic one, when viewed in global terms. We will have to deal with the effects of climate change whether it be due to human activity or not, but if there is a significant component that we're responsible for, continuing in this behaviour is going to make a very large problem a great deal worse, with attendant very high costs to amerliorate it. It is risk management. Putting heads in the sand and saying that there's doubt about the link, does not make the risk of that link magically disappear. Even a 5% chance of the link being actual may be sufficient for a purely economic assessment to indicate that emissions should be sharply curbed.
If there were alternative policies being adopted by those governments against the Kyoto accords, then that would be an indication that their objections were based on more than short-term economic growth (or worse, given the somewhat incestuous relationships between governments and industry.) Yet Australia for example has not even managed to reduce its rate of growth of emissions (not the emission levels themselves!) to targets that had been set earlier.
If the Kyoto accords are not a step in the right direction, then the continuing increase of CO2 emissions is certainly not a preferable alternative.
In case it isn't obvious, the National Post is a very right wing paper, at least in Canadian terms. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but they have a history of taking any opportunity to attack the Kyoto Accord.
As a case in point, I offer the title, subtitle and byline for the article:
I would say, for instance, that a more cautious interpretation would be that an important new paper suggests flaws in the research, not that it reveals it. Particularly if I were a writer for a business & economics paper, not a climate change researcher. And then there is the title itself...
To give credit where it is due, he does tend to use the phrase 'climate change' rather than the older 'global warming', which is a more accurate description of what the body of research underpinning Kyoto actually suggests. Usually you can spot biased participants in debates like this by their choice of language.
Personally, I have never taken sides over whether climate change is likely to be a reality or not. I don't need it as a justification for my environmental leanings. I think there are many national security and economic justifications for taking such actions as improving energy efficiency throughout society without relying on theories such as climate change that are far beyond my ability to competently analyze. So go ahead and tear Kyoto apart if you care to, but don't use that as an excuse to increase dependence on Middle East oil, for example.
And I haven't seen a big appetite for new nuclear or coal power plants in the US as of late either.
If you say, "now I'll be modded down because of X", I'll happily oblige.
You seem, however, to have left out your scientific criticism of their methodology and results.
The original 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes was not in error. McIntyre and McKitrick screwed up their data when they published this paper. Somebody exported the raw data in the original paper to Excel but somehow exported 159 columns of data into a 112 column spreadsheet. M&M did not compare the spreadsheet and produced a "correction" to the original paper that was based on nothing but errors, since the full paleoclimatic data series of 159 columns is required to properly audit the analysis done in the 1998 paper. More information here and here. The world really is melting.
The authors of the original paper have already published a rebuttal to this M&M paper with further details about how M&M faithfully replicated neither the data nor the procedures in their audit.
If you follow the links provided in the parent post, you will find the rebuttal by the authros where they state:
We did not ask for an Excel spreadsheet nor did we receive one.
If you read the rest of their rebuttal, it becomes clear that Mann just made the excel error up! No really! Go read!
People getting confused when relating this to the melting of the polar caps is due to the fact that while the northern cap is largely over water and they think of the ice cube in a glass thing. But that's not the end of the story. The bulk of the southern ice mass *is* over land, and a good chunk of ice in the north is too, plus the temperature rise necessary to melt the caps would almost certainly cause a rise in the snowline and meltage of other inland ice.
In a nutshell, ice mass supported by the oceans can melt without causing the seas to rise, but ice supported by land will cause the seas to rise. Note: I seem to recall that "supported by" is not the same as "directly over", but it's a *long* time since I did any geography.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high?
No, they have an agenda. They have a belief that they feel strongly about, and they want others to either believe it too, or at least be held to the constraints that those beliefs create. This is every bit as greedy has having that "belief" be that my bank account should be the biggest or that Globex-MegaCorp's belief that their balance sheet is the most important thing in the world. Remember, having what one thinks in ones brain is a "good" motive does not justify acts that potentially harm (physically, financially, or otherwise) others.
Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out. After all, you can never be sure so better to do nothing, eh?
Or like getting chemo just because you found a bump on your arm? A situation where the "cure" can be worse than the perceived disease? Shall we have put all AIDS patience on an island, after all, better to be safe than sorry right? The problem with your statement is that you're ignoring the fact that there is a gray area. The problem is that the signs are far from "obvious" and the actions being taken are truely massive in scale and affect the lives of millions. So it is something that warrants careful study, and re-study, and checks and balances to come about to a proper conclusion (or as close as you can reasonbly get).
Don't worry, go ahead and doubt environmentalists. I'm sure businessmen whose entire job is making profits for their own companies are *much* more reliable at telling you what the state of the environment is.
Funny you say that when the article mentions NOTHING about any business being involved in the contradicting studies. As far as I can see, YOU'RE the only one even mentioning business or the profit motive into this equation. I would say that anyone completely believing in EITHER side is just as bad as anyone completely believing in the OTHER side.
Because the same thing could be applied to anything that lacks proof, but would have a consequence if true. The oldest example I know of this kind of thing is Pascal's wager. It's an argument for the belief in god that goes like this:
There is a 2x2 matrix, where you either believe or don't believe in god and he does or doesn't exist. You then fill in the boxes with values for benefit or penalty for the situations. Now what Pascal argued is that in the "does exist" column the values are infinite, positive for belief, negative for disbelief since teh reward and punishment are infinetly greater than anything in this world. So it doesn't matter what is in the "does not exist" column since it will be finite. Well, you don't want to risk it, so you should jsut believe in god.
This is, of course, hugely problematic and easy to poke holes in. There are tons of other cases we could argue including that it ISN'T infinite in the "does exist" column, that god can tell between real and faked belief, that there is a different god, etc.
Now the problem is applying that kind of "you can't risk it" logic to everything lets psuedo science get teh same creedence as real science, and in that, swindlers. Like suppose I come to you with a bunch of graphs n' numbers n' daigrams and stuff. I tell you that this is data on my new drug that can cure all forms of cancer. All I need is $10 million to develop it. You look over my data and realise that it in no way justifies my claim. My response? "Yes, but can you really risk it? I mean what if my data IS right and I CAN make the drug? Can you risk on missing out on that oppertunity, not to mention depriving society of that benifit?" If you find that compelling, well then I have some graphs n' numbers n' daigrams to show you...
Basically, before comitting to something as a fact, and making large changes becaues of it, it needs to pass scientific (strong inference) muster. Otherwise, we get into a really bad situation.
In assuming that a correlation implies a causation. It doesn't. There is no argument that temperatures have been rising in recorded history (a short period actually) nor is there an argument that human output of CO2 has risen since the IR. However that those two happened together does not mean that one caused the other, that is a seperate issue.
Finding causation is much harder than finding a correlation since all sorts of things are correlated (and it's simply to measure) but the causal link can be much more complex.
For example:
You can get the causal link the wrong way. There is a positive correlation between weight and height. There's aslo a causal link. However if you say that increasing weight will increase height, you've got teh direction of the link wrong.
There can be an outside factor. There is a positive correlation in the United States between being white and scoring well on standardised tests. However if you say that being white CAUSES you to score well on tests, you'd be wrong. The real cause is much more complex and has to do with general trends in educational and economic background.
Then there are just things that are incidental. For awhile, there was a positive correlation between one of my friends attending football games and the team winning. Every game he attended, they won, the couple he missed, they lost. Well of course he didn't cause them to win, nor did their loosing cause him not to attend, it was just random luck.
So, just because we have found a positive correlation between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2 does NOT mean we've found a causal link.
Please note that the editor of "E&E" is one of the few environmental scientists who agreed with Bjorn Lomborg "Skeptical Environmentalist", and a self-confessed environmental sceptic. As stated there, the journal itself has a "stance [that] is critical of conventional wisdom".
Now, I don't read E&E (I tend to read the mainstream geophysics journals: GAFD, JGR(Oceans) and GRL -- "E&E" is not a mainstream geophysics journal), but I am slightly concerned about work published in a journal with an agenda. One may also be concerned about the suitability of referees selected by an editor out to prove a point, rather than to publicise good science.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?"
Because environmentalists want to change a lot more than power generation. The big sources of greenhouse gasses aren't power plants so much as factories, the ones that make the things than we use to maintain our standard of living.
But even ignoring that, renewable energy sources have their own problems environmental associated with them. Going all solar or all wind, for example, means clearing a lot of land that might otherwise be natural wilderness. It's hard to say that's better than a coal-fired plant, and I know I personally feel that it's worse than a nuclear power plant.
"I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed."
Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day. The Kyoto Protocols restrict the greenhouse output only of developed countries that have already moved on to more efficient (and therefore cleaner) means of energy production. China and India as "developing" nations are exempt. In many ways the Kyoto Protocols increase the greenhouse output of these countries, hobbling local manufacturing in the industrialized world and making the cheapier and dirtier manufacturing operations over there seem all that more attractive.
"As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies."
This looks a little like hypocricy. You don't want us to be prejudiced against the views of environmentalists because of who they are ("tree-hugging hippies looking for a cause"), but you seem to be prejudiced against the views of non-environmentalists because of who they are ("money-grubbing fat cats looking for a quick buck").
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Possibly because they admit it?
In John McPhee's Encounters with the Archdruid, David Bower, the former director of the Sierra Club, admits he just made his numbers up. McPhee asks Bower where he found the data for the 'The U.S. has 6% of the world's population but consumes 40% of the world's resourcess' quote. Bower's response was it sounded about right.
... the rebuttals from the authors of the original paper are here.
That there can be so much controversy highlights the fragility of the "models" that have been developed to support the varying points of view. It seems we really don't understand the climate process yet so maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't leap at any proposed solutions (like Kyoto) because maybe there isn't a problem.
How come not jumping to solutions based on scanty knowledge of the problem makes sense on the small scale (e.g. advice from a sysadmin to a user) but gets lost on the large scale issues (global warming)?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I've never done a survey of environmentalists myself, so I couldn't possibly verify this as true. I'm not one, but despite my personal feelings, I can acknowledge some positive influence of environmentalism in my life. Although there are also points that I'd say are negatives, I can ask myself some questions:
Which is better? A 4000-pound passenger car that gets 18 mpg on the highway, or a 3200-pound car which has the same amount of interior room, 30 more horsepower and gets 30 mpg on the highway? Added bonus is that the engine doesn't turn itself into a slimy greaseball over the course of its lifetime, because of better tolerances and improved emissions controls. I know which one I'd rather drive and maintain.
Which is better, a light source that draws 60 watts or a light source with the same light output that draws 14 watts and lasts five times as long? I'll take the latter, thanks.
Which is better? Duck hunters poisoning their future game with lead shot, or a prohibition on toxic shot, resulting in a stable duck population? Being a hunter myself, I've got the old articles to prove the difficulty environmentalists had in convincing waterfowl hunters of the 60s and 70s that dumping pounds of lead into waterways was a bad idea. You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but still, resistance abounds for banning lead shot everywhere. Sure non-toxic shot is more expensive now, but it wouldn't be if the switch had been made 30 years ago.
Which is better? Dumping resultant chemicals from manufacturing into natural waterways, or storing those chemicals offsite, where other companies can deal with the disposal in a manner that doesn't kill things. Considering that I can actually swim in the local river and eat the fish I catch there for the first time in my life, I'd say that not dumping toxic chemicals is preferable.
...More efficient home furnaces, better insulating materials that don't cause cancer with repeated exposure, better air quality (sorry exhaust fumes are more irritating to me than pollen), disclosure of potentially dangerous substances in use at otherwise low-risk jobs. There are quite a few benefits to environmentalism, so I'm not quite ready to pan all environmentalists as extremists. Things are getting awfully black and white in political arenas as of late, and I wouldn't want my affiliation as "Republican" to mean "get rid of all environmentalists".
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS