NewsWeek debunks its own Global Warming Story

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 16 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]497525[/snapback]</div>

No doubt. We're going to try to avoid products from China, but it's going to be tough. They make just about everything sold here now. At least the grocery stores are really latching on to the "local" produce thing. Every advert I've heard on the radio lately (for grocery stores) mentions local produce.

And no, they're not solely to blame, but they really do need to invest more in their future, not just the present. Of course, we've quite guilty of that too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 16 2007, 07:49 PM) [snapback]497507[/snapback]</div>

That is a well argued case Tim. If the forcings are not included in current modeling then that can change things in so far as the strength of CO2 forcing (could possibly lower that number) and what numbers they choose to use in their models. The other part is the actual cooling effect and how that would change the CO2 forcing number back up again. I'm using the term forcing incorrectly here but it is easier to make sense of so forgive me. So what this leaves us with is even more uncertainty to the most direct culprit behind global warming but since this new evidence is yet another form of anthropogenic pollution, does it not dictate action on our part? I know you agree with this but I'm just putting it out there. I guess we will have to wait and see how more studies on this subject pan out as other scientists get their chance to disprove the hypothesis.

I htink part of the big problem with trying to make China clean up their practices is that a large portion of it is due to our consumption. We buy a large portion of their products and even have our own factories over there doing the polluting because of lax environmental pollution laws compared to the U.S and cheap labor. We export our garbage to them as well. So while I agree they HAVE to be on the same page as the U.S. (if we ever truely start working on the problems), we have to face the fact that we are a direct cause of their pollution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 16 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]497155[/snapback]</div>

I think the point of Gavin's post is that the methods -- the algorithms -- used to create their software are described. In science, that's what you do. You describe your methods and invite others to replicate them. The whole point is that others replicate the experiment from scratch, following the method. Bringing up the question, if someone can't take the same algorithms and build their own program, would they be competent to judge the source code in the first place?

EDIT: actually, Gavin has stated the same himself
Comment 349
[Response: We publish hundreds of papers a year from GISS alone. We have more data, code and model output online than any comparable institution, we have a number of public scientists who comment on the science and the problems to most people and institutions who care to ask. And yet, the demand is always for more transparency. This is not a demand that will ever be satisfied since there will always be more done by the scientists than ever makes it into papers or products. My comments above stand - independent replication from published descriptions - the algorithms in English, rather than code - are more valuable to everyone concerned than dumps of impenetrable and undocumented code. - gavin]

 

From the article: "He says the conventional picture of the Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude circulation comprises basin-wide but quite distinct gyres contained within the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. However model simulations had suggested that these gyres are connected." They went looking for the currents because a model accurately predicted that it existed - this "new" information came from a model and was verified and refined by real world measurements. Ocean currents and warming was a major test of climate models forseen in the 90's and the models have passed it. Your "clearly... not addressed yet" data was predicted by models before it was proven by measurements!

Do you understand the fundamental scientific concept of the error band? The research you're pointing to "should make climate-change predictions more accurate." There is absolutely no expectation that this data will change the current answer, merely serve to increase the certainty and narrow the currently forecasted range. You're being suckered by mass media's desire for a headline.

OF COURSE THERE ARE UNKNOWNS. That is what all this science is aiming to reduce. The unknowns have, over the last decade, been incorporated into the science and never, not once, resulted in a correction outside of the accurately defined prediction range (which regardless of what Al or discredited Mr McIntyre tell you is clearly stated to be quite large, between moderate and high warming). Aerosols have a huge role to play in the models, with scenarios often run with different assumptions regarding their generation, even including a few major volcanic eruptions, which statistically will occur over the investigation period.

As to this specific study, it was looking at localized warming effects, "regional lower atmospheric warming trends. " It is not dealing with the global climate picture, which is "fairly well understood," but with the localized impact - the huge difference between global climate studies and the local weather forecast, or quantum mechanics and the implementation of a CPU. Aerosols are well understood and incorporated on the global scale.

Why don't you publish a paper to follow up on your beliefs? Seriously, many scientists have shared your beliefs, then they followed through and looked at the data (the source of all the climate change models is actual observations of facts - that is what science is). When they did so, they often made valuable contributions to improving the accuracy of the predictions, reducing the error bars but not exceeding them. As for the general modeling of water vapor, that was thoroughly worked over following the Mt Pinatubo observations. It is indeed the source of significant error, and the current work is done to further refine it - it is very incorrect to suggest that water vapor is currently poorly modeled, or even ignored. It's in there and the wide-scale approximations have held very well against actual observation.

I stand by my contention that the "major questions," factors that are most likely to change the predictions beyond the error bars, have been nailed down. On my side is every reputable scientist in the world. While you keep grabbing people who support me and claiming, somehow, they prove your point (while also performing an admirable act of doublethink to argue no scientists are willing to attack global warming and are all in some environmental group's pocket), I don't think you have any professional in the field on your side yet. I'm giving up at this point with a sorry shake of my head about the state of American scientific education.
Here's a link to an article by FoxNews that oversimplifies it as much as possible for you. There are errors in the climate models, and hundreds of people putting their time where their mouths are and actually finding them. This is science and is making the models better, yet you're grasping at every little improvement as, paradoxically, proof that the models are wrong. All it proves is that science is working by constantly challenging and improving the climate models with real, measured observations. Over the last decade of these constant attacks (which are the scientific process and should continue indefinitely), the climate models are still standing. This is what a "scientific consensus" means - no one has broken the theory for a long time so everyone begrudgingly accepts it as true for the moment.

The only thing that has changed for over a decade are the error bars. If you check out the IPCC reports, they've shrunk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 16 2007, 10:11 PM) [snapback]497564[/snapback]</div>

our consumption of their goods is a part, to be sure, but most of their power plants lack even the most basic pollution controls. Ditto their factories. So I disagree that we're the direct cause of their pollution. Their complete disregard for their own air/water/soil is the direct cause of their pollution. They could be LOT cleaner than they are now producing the same volume of products. We could be too. I'm not blaming China for the world's woes. I'm blaming them for their own problems. We've obviously got plenty of our own making too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 17 2007, 09:45 AM) [snapback]497888[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. If you buy their products or our own products that are produced in China then you are a direct cause of that pollution, regardless of any other gray areas. You provide a demand for their market which will produce pollution. It is as simple as that. There is no other way to put the blame on anyone else but the consumer because there are a great many products we simply do not need to buy and for those which we "require" there are better sources to purchase them from.

True they create many of their own problems but that does not eliminate our responsibility and contributions to their pollution problems.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Aug 15 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]496195[/snapback]</div>

I believe the scientists. I don't believe the political side of the argument, and the steady drumbeat that its a crisis that requires government suspension of rights.

And, there are more problems with the data than the atmospheric data a few years ago. One of the critics, who I think is merely a weatherman, recently discovered a problem with the US surface temperature measurements from NASA's program. He couldn't get the actual software used to crunch the numbers ... while others think this is due to nefarious intent, I suspect it's a copyright issue ... but he was able to get the raw data and work backwards. And he found an error. It was actually a Y2K error, and NASA has revised its findings so that 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record ... 1934 is. And the decade with the most years in the top ten? The 1930's. The US data is now being discounted because the US is, after all, not a lot of surface area, and besides, it doesn't fit in with the world data.

SurfaceStations.org has been visiting some of the surface temperature stations, and has found glaring irregularities in the maintenance of them, including pavement, concrete structures, incinerators, tree growth with partial shade, lights installed in the enclosures, sensors moved outside of the enclosures, etc. So far, they have visited about a third of the 900+ stations.

This station has been in place for 100 years:



And this one has too, but note the deficiencies in the installation, and the graph of temperatures:



Researchers try to account for urbanization and "metro island" effects, but they can't possibly account for these types of deficiencies. An effort must be made to bring every temperature recording station into compliance and throw the impacted data out. The remaining ones, where the installations are to spec, should be the ones that are going into the sophisticated number-crunching software.

In my view, the most damning evidence that global warming is happening and that man has a hand in it through increased hydrocarbon use is found in the "hard science", things like ice core samples where the CO2 levels can be accurately measured over thousands of years. Computer modeling is not accurate, as you mention in trying to come up with a "natural" cycle. The same problems happen with the other models. Science or Nature, quite a few months ago, had an article about the prevalence of methane in the atmosphere, and how none of the models really accounted for it. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and there just isn't enough swampland in the world to account for the levels in the air. Come to find out, trees produce methane ... not in levels that make trees "bad" because they are still a net carbon sink, but in enough level that the natural levels of methane is closer to being accounted for. And a computer didn't crunch numbers and find that out, a team of scientists proved it in a lab, with hard science. Not software written by someone who didn't realize there really WAS a "year zero" between 1999 and 2001.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 18 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]498550[/snapback]</div>

I'm hardly aguing against transparency. But you don't duplicate an experiment to prove its validity by telling someone to reproduce the experiment in your lab. That is, in fact, the best way to replicate an existing error. You give them the methods (i.e., the algorithms) and the materials (the raw data) and invite them to duplicate the experiment. If their results don't match yours, it can be cause for discussion and further experimentation.

And a fshagan noted above, it may well be due to copyright issues. The written software likely has Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Agreements entangled in with the funding that covered its creation. They may not legally be allowed to release it. They also may not wish to allocate funds to pay someone to document it line by line before releasing it. Especially since there is no scientific justification for doing so. Especially for a statistically insignificant change. Or already when a flippant comment by McIntyre has people mistakenly thinking this was a Y2K glitch when it was nothing of sort and when there's been a large level of innaccurate reporting regarding the significance of this.

from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...4-and-all-that/

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). 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. ... More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). ...Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 20 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]499193[/snapback]</div>

I think perhaps there's a difference of semantics happening; i.e., the scientists don't consider their code "data" but rather a tool implementing methods described in published articles. I believe the raw data and methods are available at the links below:
Methods
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html
Data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
or
http://dev.edgcm.columbia.edu/wiki/GISTEMP

I think also the fact that these are US anomalies, from USHNC stations (viewable here ), is what minimizes the impact globally, insofar as the United States accounts for about 2% of the global surface. So it's an error for 4 years of .15% for 2% of the surface area, i.e., insignificant,.

In any case Tim, I expect you and I will continue to disagree about this, but the discussion has certainly been educational for me. Cheers--Scott

 

I notice a common denominator in our GW deniers. Eventually the ones with an ounce of integrity admit they are not experts in the field; and in fact don't really have a clue, but want their opinion to carry equal weight to the science experts anyway.

And then they feel insulted when ridicule comes their way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 19 2007, 12:58 AM) [snapback]498560[/snapback]</div>

As good science, the IPCC clearly states the level of theory development and estimates. Doing so increases the transparency and trustworthiness of their results and helps suggest areas for further testing to replace the assumption and improve the theory - it is a sign of the strength of the results not weakness. The actual size of each doubt is not "low" or "moderate," it is an actual number applied to each specific factor that is carried through into the final error estimates. This is critical as a large error on an insignificant factor is scientifically interesting but of little consequence in the final result - the Prius's mirrors are not very aerodynamic, but that has little impact on the Cd of the whole car.

I agree that there is no point in me continuing the discussion since you appear to be replying to facts (the IPCC calculated error using the best known estimates and measurements of the unknowns developed, documented and published over the last 20-30 years) with what appear to be strongly held but factually unsupported opinions ('I don't think they're right because "low" sure sounds uncertain to me'). As an engineer who would kill people if I worked like that, I find that approach fundamentally annoying and clearly can't remain civil enough for a light chatter board. To be fair, it's is as much me as you. I have such a thin skin for twisting of science that I can't stand watching any TV news anymore. It is not a liberal or conservative media, it's a scientifically ignorant media. Journalists are the guys who flunked out of their science classes and it shows (no insult to journalists - scientists are the guys who flunked out of their English classes).

 

"It is not a liberal or conservative media, it's a scientifically ignorant media."

I disagree. It is a media with a political agenda, that feels comfortable cherry picking news or data that seems to, or might fit their opinions. Just like our deniers. The summary statement of the IPCC was specifically written for non-scientists as a consensus statements by the world's experts in the field. Notice how many GW deniers have read it ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Aug 20 2007, 02:19 PM) [snapback]499366[/snapback]</div>

I think you're right. My understanding is that the data is available, as are the correction factors to account for the "urban heat island" effect. It was by examining that data that the error was discovered.

Science is often advanced by ordinary people, often without advanced degrees from prestigious universities and huge research grants. Comets are named by amateur astronomers (think Hale-Bopp, where one of those guys was an amateur).

But I find it extremely interesting that no one ... no one at NASA, no one at the NOAA, no one on the UN panel, no one at any university ... noticed what a weatherman in Toronto noticed. "The error is insignificant!" is the phrase someone uses who is embarrassed by a blunder they should have noted.

Who is looking at the international data?

 

Or .... this is going to blow your mind ... the error IS insignificant.

This is also the conclusion of the scientific community expert in the field, not the "person responsible". But far be it from me to let facts interfere with your fantasies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 20 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]499434[/snapback]</div>

If people are going to insist on calling someone a "Global Warming denier" because they are not convinced we are in some mortal danger from global warming and we want be to a bunch of elementary school kids calling each other names, perhaps we can call the people who support the scientific consensus "Global Warming terrorists." If someone wanted to use that name, it would fit. Those who advocate the theory of global warming warn people must change their ways or take a certain action or else there are going to be dire consequnces. If you don't agree with that view point, then the people who support that view point are coming after you -- i.e. you're going to be called a "denier," if you're in the scientific community and you don't fall into line you're career is over because people are going to go out of their way to destroy your good name.

To me this has a lot of similarities to the pre-Iraq war situation. Those who opposed taking action in Iraq questioned the intellegence, made charges that some of the intel was being "cherry picked," and some of these people had their patriotism called into question because they asked questions. Those people had every right to ask their questions and be skeptical -- just as the case for those who question the alarmist claims made by those who believe in global warming.