Bali-wood II, The Forest Thickens
The reader will benefit from reading the blog article previous to this one.
Drs. David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer have published an article in the International Journal of Climatology in which they explain that serious discrepencies exist between the computer models of climate change and the 25 year data from satellites and weather balloons.
Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer are the world’s experts on satellite data and Christy is a United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) editor. Ironically Christy and Spencer also have serious problems with the IPCC report, claiming it is a politically biased publication and misrepresents a lot of the science, reasons for why Christy left the IPCC process recently. (Christy and Spencer however, do think the evidence suggests CO2 can cause local climate change.)
Why am I not surprised? As I have said before, having created computer models myself, you have to be concerned with the raw data used and more specifically the assumptions you make. Garbage in can easily equal garbage out. Sometimes even good data in can equal garbage out if your assumptions are wrong. As I have mentioned before at this time the surface station data is suspect.
From the publication:
On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
In summary, the debate in this field revolves around the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature trends warming faster than the surface. What is new in this article is the determination of a very robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations which disagree with trends from the models.
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.
(Bold faced emphasis is mine.)
Scientists recommending caution, imagine that? But that is what real scientists do. Just like real doctors are cautious about making promises to patients. That’s how I was trained.
Politicians and fake scientists, on the other hand, like Al Gore and the Suzuki make all kinds of hot air promises.
Which reminds me of the ancient Babylonian inscription:
Psychics who make predictions that are found incorrect shall have their heads seized from their bodies and placed upon the southeast gate.*
(How long did it take for the politicians to screw up this earthly delight created by ancient scientists?)
* The one about doctors who fail to save their patients sucks just as bad.
Update:
From the comments:
Models aren’t perfect, but they are our best means to predict the consequences of increasing GHG in the atmosphere.
- Grant
You mean you trust this data, Grant?:
(Official NOAA Suface Station Sensor, Livermore California)
NOOO, NOOO, THE PROBLEM is deeper than that!
You are far too easy on the AGW theorists. The burden of proof is on the model builder, not on those who question it.
The problem with AGW theorists is that their research shows a fundamental ignorance of the scientific method. They do not seem to understand the NULL HYPOTHESIS.
As I’m sure you know, when we develop any hypothesis of any sort, science requires that we also develop a fully contrarian hypothesis. For disinterested scientists, the null hypothesis is true unless one can compellingly disprove it. This process of disproof must go on indefinitely, for as is often said, myriad data can prove a theory, but even one observation can disprove it. The IPCC documents mention the null hypothesis, but they act as if they can put it to bed once, and never have to deal with it again.
Other AGW blogs discuss Douglass et al., but the assumption is that this research much disprove AGW. They are mistaken, the burden of proof is on AGW. I think Douglass et al. is important because it confirms several key null hypotheses.
Here are just a few AGW null hypotheses: (1) there is no global climate, (2) there is no single global temperature, (3) there is no single sea level, (4) there is no upward trend in global temperature, (5) there are no interaction terms which would change the pace or trend of global temperature.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL CLIMATE. Just because an astronaut took a nice picture of our little Earth, does not mean that our planet is a ‘unity’. Gaia is probably not home. To prove that there IS a global climate, one must resolve orthogonalities. Data sets are orthogonal if they show zero correlation with each other. That is, they are statistically and stochastic independent. They are not causally connected. If two data sets are only somewhat correlated, then they are also mostly orthogonal.
Therefore, if Northern and Southern hemisphere data are only poorly correlated, they are mostly orthogonal, and they are mostly not causally connected. But this happens all the time in climate research! Surface temperature data is all over the place, even if you exclusively focus on the most reliable data sets. AGW theorists are constantly implicitly confirming the lack of ‘Globality’ in their data. Northern hemisphere is supposed to be different from the tropics, and observationally appears different from the South. Greenland is (falsely) thought to be melting, but Antarctica is not. Some ocean areas are thought to be heating, others cooling. Fine, but this all disproves ‘Globality’. That is, if global warming is occurring, temperatures throughout the globe MUST move together, they MUST be correlated in a non-trivial way. Otherwise, one cannot disprove the null hypothesis that there is no ‘Global Climate’.
Whew… I’ll work on the other null hypotheses later…
Comment by DemocracyRules — December 13, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
as another factor against global warming due to GHGs: seems the increase in greenland melting is not just due (if at all) to global warming. there has been an ongoing underice volcano erupting for some time, corresponding to the larget (?) and newest ice river in greenland. was on msn site. fyi.
Comment by Darrell — December 14, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
The scientists over at http://www.realclimate.org have dealt with this issue over and over again. For a specific critique see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Christy was actually the scientist who identified the problems with the satellite data, why he’s now using the data himself
is a bit of a mystery. The basic problem with this paper is that old data was used (RAOBCORE v1.2 vs v1.4) and that the
error in the models and the data aren’t reported. If proper statistical methods were used, there would be no significant
difference between the models and the data.
Models aren’t perfect, but they are our best means to predict the consequences of increasing GHG in the atmosphere. Even if
the models do have problems, this doesn’t change the fact that ice core records link increasing GHG to global warming, and
that the increase in GHG in the atmosphere can be directly attributed to human activities. It’s time to wake and start doing
something about the problem instead of repeating the claims of scientists who represent a small minority.
Comment by Grant — December 14, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Thanks Grant, but this paper is peer reviewed while the web site is not. I’d like to see some peer reviewed responses to this paper instead. Its also interesting that the core samples from trees do not indicate rapid global warming even though the models are highly based upon those samples. The ice core samples show CO2 increasing after temperature increases. The surface station data is highly suspect due to the incredibly poor care of the stations themselves.
I think we need to get real with the state of the science instead of launch an attack on the poor people of the planet to satisfy our out of touch Planet Hollywood ideas.
Comment by langmann — December 14, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
GRANT: Can you disprove the Null Hypothesis number (2), that, “THERE IS NO SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”?
More precisely, there is no relationship between global temperature data sets. They are often uncorrelated. If they are uncorrelated, then there is not sufficient evidence to claim that these temperature data sets arise from the same source. That is, they are not caused by the same climate system. One may hypothesize that they are, but one cannot prove that they are. The null hypothesis insists on compelling evidence.
The problem with AGW theorists is that their research seems to show a fundamental ignorance of the null hypothesis and how it works. For example, the IPCC documents mention the null hypothesis, but they act as if they can put it to bed once, and never have to deal with it again.
There many null hypotheses in AGW theory. Here are just a few: (1) there is no global climate, (2) there is no single global temperature, (3) there is no single sea level, (4) sea level is not related to surface temperature, (5) there are no upward or downward trends in global temperature, (6) there are no greenhouse gases which influence global climate (7) any observed and verified changes in local temperatures contain a very large proportion of error variance. Therefore, these local temperature changes will regress to the mean over time. In other words, they will go back to where they started out, (8) there are no interaction terms which would change the pace or trend of global temperature, and (9) there are no multivariate predictive models which predict future global climate, (10) humans do not and cannot influence global temperature, (11) any effort by humans to change climate or climate trends would not be cost-effective, (12) humans can adapt to any change in climate, (13) no predicted change in climate is outside the range of historical records.
All of these 13 null hypotheses must be disproved for AGW theory to be considered true. All disproofs must be robust and convincing, such that no reasonable scientist would dispute any part of AGW. There can be no substantive observations which confirm any part of the 13 null hypotheses.
THERE IS NO SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
To prove that there IS a global temperature, one must resolve orthogonalities. Data sets are orthogonal if they show zero correlation with each other. That is, they are statistically and stochastically independent. They are not causally connected. If two data sets are only somewhat correlated, then they are also mostly orthogonal.
For example, if Northern and Southern hemisphere surface temperature data are only poorly correlated, they are mostly orthogonal, and they are mostly not causally connected. But this happens all the time in climate research! Surface temperature data varies up and down and all over the place, even if you exclusively focus on the most reliable data sets. AGW theorists are constantly implicitly confirming the lack of ‘Globality’ in their data.
For example, Northern hemisphere temperature is thought to be different from the tropics, and observationally it does appear to be different from the South. Greenland is (falsely) thought to be melting, but Antarctica is not. Some ocean areas are thought to be heating, others cooling. Fine, but this all disproves ‘Globality’. That is, if global warming is occurring, temperatures throughout the globe MUST move together, they MUST be correlated in a non-trivial way. Otherwise, one cannot disprove the null hypothesis that there is no ‘Global Temperature’.
Comment by DemocracyRules — December 14, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Bali climate conference organizers canceled
a scheduled press conference Thursday morning by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) - a group of international scientists who protest the scientific basis of climate alarmism. “earlier in the week. . . (UN official) Barbara Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises. (In addition) ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits.”
WELL, MY FRIENDS, IT HAS COME TO THIS.
In my opinion, everyone who has any interest in AGW should fight to the death to prevent these efforts to silence debate.
Honestly, if we do not speak up to defend our colleagues now, our names will be mud tomorrow.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTk4OTEzMDU1YjdiMmVlYWJjYTE4MzY2ZGU5ZmNkZDQ=
Comment by DemocracyRules — December 15, 2007 @ 2:03 am
BALI BUNCHA BALONEY
Yvo de Boer was crying at the end of the Bali conference. No wonder.
Gore’s speech at Bali was political hot air containing more than 50 errors, inaccuracies and mis-truths. Just a few ‘problems’: (1) The evidence that warming is occurring AT ALL is disappearing; land-based thermometer stations are so screwed up their measurements are just not credible, and satellites show the planet cooling since 1998, (2) Sea level is not actually rising at all, and one leading Swedish scientist is accusing the IPCC of faking their sea level data, (3) It’s increasingly clear that CO2 cannot affect future temperatures, because raising the CO2 concentrations would not raise temperature much at all, (4) The climate models do not fit anymore, they’re drifting farther and farther from the real data, (5) Greenland is not melting, it’s thickening, and so is Antarctica, (6) Polar bears are increasing in numbers, and historically they have survived huge climate changes without problem, (7) Consensus is falling away, and more than 100 scientists have dropped out of the game to send the UN and all country heads a letter saying global warming theory is politically biassed, the data is full of errors, and efforts to stop this non-problem will just waste money.
I work in statistics and theoretical model building, and I am ashamed my fellow scientists would have let weeping political fools railroad them so far from the truth.
Comment by DemocracyRules — December 17, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
[...] likely that the effect of Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by GGS on global climate change is low or non-existant as no definitive proof exists, and many peer reviewed articles state there is no evidence. [...]
Pingback by clangmann.net » Green Shift, Green Shaft, or Green Pie in the Sky — September 19, 2008 @ 1:55 am
Interesting facts.I have bookmarked this site. stephanazs
Comment by stephanazs — September 20, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Even my mom liked it:))
Comment by Jacob — November 5, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
That’s good man, keep it going.
Comment by amenodimeno — July 31, 2009 @ 12:52 pm