alazycowboy.com » Climate Change

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws…

bill — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:20:05 +0000

I agree with Ann Althouse that the admissions make the non-skeptics, scientists and media, look bad. By failing to effectively criticize their own arguments for global warming, these non-skeptics have done more harm to the global progress on environmental issues than anything the deniers could say or do. Now we are confronted with a large amount of global science research of questionable scientific quality and set of global priorities which may be unjustified. This is probably a good time to re-examine the priorities advocated in The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg and to re-read the article, The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation, by Bruce McCullough and Ross McKitrick. Bjørn Lomborg argues that we are spending too much time on th wrong environmental and social issues. Bruce and Ross argue that faulty scientific research is consistently leading us to make poor government policies on major issues. As an example we may have a cleaner environment with more jobs if we can unlock the EPA from its view that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that they need to regulate. The article, Time to Repeal New Source Review? (Up to 30 GW of coal-plant upgrades hangs in the balance), makes the argument that the EPA is holding up a lot of jobs and a cleaner environment for the sake of regulating carbon dioxide.

Original link to Daily Mail article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

A Thought Experiment for Scientists

bill — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:27:23 +0000

With all of the talk about the Climategate emails I devised a simple thought experiment for scientists. Let us imagine that you are teaching a college science class and you have assigned a science project to your students that will comprise the majority of their grade for the semester. The objective of the project is demonstrate the student’s knowledge of the material you are teaching, their ability to follow the scientific process like a scientist, and their ability to defend their conclusion in front of their fellow students. At the end of the semester you find one student who appears to have reasonable results but they lost the raw data and the method they transformed the raw data into the data that supports their conclusion. When you ask the student how they know the conclusion is correct, their primary defense is that it matches the results turned in by other students. During the defense of the project the other students do not seem to be bothered about the missing raw data and the method the data was transformed. So what grade do you give this student?

You give the student an ‘A’ or a ‘B’ since they got the right result. Their defense of the conclusion was excellent despite the missing data and lack of questions by the other students.
You give the student a ‘C’ or an ‘Incomplete’ since the conclusion was indefensible without the raw data and method used to transform the data. You are bothered that the other students were not more aggressive pursuing the questioning of this project. You have this uncomfortable sense of collusion amongst the students but you are unwilling to judge whether the student’s actions were deliberant or an unfortunate accident.
You give the student a ‘F’ since you believe the student deliberately subverted the scientific process. You want to send a message to the students in the class and to those students planning on taking this course to forewarn them that this behavior will not be tolerated.

Climategate: The Smoking Gun The article published at Pajamas Media, Climategate Computer Codes Are...
Things that make me go hmm… No statistically significant warming since 1995 I am beginning to think that this global warming crisis...
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws… I agree with Ann Althouse that the admissions make the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Things that make me go hmm… No statistically significant warming since 1995

bill — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:33:42 +0000

I am beginning to think that this global warming crisis is a sinister plot by statistics professors to get more students to take statistics courses. Despite my misgivings about the true motives of global warming I will take the opportunity to give a big thanks to Luboš for encouraging me to refresh my knowledge of regression analysis. In his post, The Reference Frame: No statistically significant warming since 1995, he shows a simple example of regression analysis of temperature anomalies. Since I am Mathematica challenged I opted to use a method a high school student would probably be familiar with, I used Excel. Without much effort I was able to quickly plot add a trend line to the Excel chart with the following equation on the chart, y = 0.0095x + 0.12 with a R² = 0.0889. Luboš was kind enough to provide me with a link to the AP Tutorial on Statistics so that I would be reminded on the prerequisites for regression analysis. The Coefficient of Determination or otherwise known as R² is a key output of regression analysis. To paraphrase the AP Tutorial for this case, the variance of the temperature anomalies are 8.9% predictable from the time variable. Ugh! So whether you look at the confidence interval, Standard Error, or R², it is reasonable to conclude that the temperature data is really ugly and to agree with Luboš that the underlying trend in 1995-2009 was "somewhat more likely than not" a warming trend rather than a cooling trend.

For kicks I decided to follow up on a comment Bret made on this same article posted on the Watts Up With That? blog concerning using monthly data. I found some suitable monthly temperature data at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp, imported it into Excel, and plotted it. Here is the result.

Some people may complain that this chart is a nonsensical plot since the seasonal variations overwhelms the temperature trend. On the other hand it highlights how small the slope of the trend line is compared to the seasonal variations. Regardless of which estimate of the temperature increase you choose, it is still a very small number compared to the seasonal temperature variations. Another complaint might be that I should have used temperature anomalies rather than the actual temperature data. This begs the question whether you can have a warming trend that shows up in the anomalies that doesn’t show up in actual temperature data. Oh-oh! I think I should move on to less contentious subjects.

Since I was on a roll I decided to go one step further and analyze the temperature data like it was weather. Oops! I put climate change and weather in the same sentence. Every time I see or hear a weather forecast they discuss the high and low temperatures for the day. I do not remember ever hearing a weather forecast that included the average temperature for the day. In some cases a weather forecast will include an average high or low for the day. Hence I created a plot of the maximum and minimum monthly temperature for each year. This appealed to both my pragmatic view and my engineering background. If we can imagine that our climate is a control system, a control engineer would primarily be interested in setting control limits on the maximum and the minimum values. Surely we should get a better regression analysis using the annual maximum and minimum values.

Once again despite selecting a subset of the monthly temperature data that should have had a better chance of a statistically relevant temperature trend, the regression statistics continue to make it difficult about drawing conclusions about warming or cooling trends. The R² value for the maximum temperature and minimum temperature trends are better than the raw monthly trend but they are still very low. Once again the underlying trend is "somewhat more likely than not" a warming trend rather than a cooling trend. The R² value has improved but with it so low, we are still saying very little.

Here are some more thoughts to ponder.

The range in the system from high to low temperature, 44 degrees, is very large compared to the warming trend(~ 1 degree/century). My inner engineer is having trouble understanding why a climate system that can handle a 44 degree swing in temperatures is having problems with a warming trend of about a degree per century.
Are the problems we are seeing with the R² value in our regressions analysis a natural result of the errors(noise) in the system of measuring temperatures? As an example if our temperature measurements are limited to an accuracy of plus or minus one degree, are we not fundamentally limited by the measurement errors in the system. What can we say about warming trends of one degree per century if our measurement errors are likely to be as large as the trend?
How low does a R² value or confidence limits in trends need to go before we decide to pack it in and say we do not know what is happening?

Finally for a humorous look at the scientific process courtesy of xkcd.com we have the Science Montage.

Climategate: The Smoking Gun The article published at Pajamas Media, Climategate Computer Codes Are...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Climategate: The Smoking Gun

bill — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:14:04 +0000

The article published at Pajamas Media, Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story, is the best explanation of why the global warming scientists have been so passionate in avoiding the Freedom of Information act requests. These scientists knew they were in a lose-lose predicament. They knew they were brushing up with the law if they ignored the freedom of information act requests but they definitely did not want Steve McIntyre to look at the raw data and the programs and go ballistic. So they decided to replicate the results using synthesized data and prayed that they could put off the freedom of information act requests indefinitely.

As an IT guy in my day job I have seen this problem and it is called lax change management. In the professional programming world there are a multitude of horror stories associated with lax change management. This problem has been attributed to major cost overruns, project cancellations, and occasionally the failure of a company. To avoid these types of problems most companies have instituted a very simple and effective philosophy. You skirt the rules of change management and something goes wrong, you are fired!

Somewhere some important people are gathering and trying to figure out what to do with these scientists and their projects. Global warming science is important but are these scientists “too big to fail”? I am not sure an audit or internal investigation will satisfy either the politicians or the public. Such a waste of time and money! This is going to get uglier before it gets better. There are probably several ideas the scientific community probably needs to implement to avoid disasters like this in the future. As a starter maybe the scientific community will finally open its publicly funded projects to outside scrutiny much earlier in the game.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A Year Without A Summer?

bill — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:20:20 +0000

On Friday the woman giving the weather report for the Cincinnati area said we might need to break out the sweaters. She was predicting that the high temperatures for the day might set new records for the lowest recorded high temperature. It seems like we have had only seven days of summer weather. Last night when we were taking horses out, my son wore a sweatshirt.

Our fly population has been decimated by the cool Spring and Summer. Flies are warm weather insects. The house fly is the most temperature hardy but their population is down considerably over previous years. They were at least a month late in arriving this year because of the cool Spring. Our deer fly population typically arrives during June and I don’t think I saw more than one or two. Now is the time when the first horse flies should be showing up. They are hot weather insects and diminish rapidly with the cool weather of Fall. It should be interesting to see how many horse files emerge if the temperature remains below average. This year is shaping up to be the coldest summer in ten years for me.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming | Politics and Law – CNET News

bill — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:42:32 +0000

"I’m sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on the EPA’s finding, and frankly, on other analysis the EPA has conducted on climate issues."

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure the EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, President Barack Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."

"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers–you’ve got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming | Politics and Law – CNET News

I am amused at how the firing of the AmeriCorps Inspector General and this story seem to have “legs”. You would think it would be in the administration’s best interest to have someone looking over their shoulders and so that they can keep the minor scandals from becoming major scandals. The greatest threat to the Democratic party and the administration is the Democratic party shooting itself in the foot. If the mayor of Sacramento misused AmeriCorps to the tune of $800,000 for personal use, the tax payers want to see that AmeriCorps gets paid back in full. This should be a fairly simple trade off for the administration to prevent future spending abuses. Firing the Inspector General says a very loud message that no one will be watching the hen house. With all of this federal money floating around and no safe guards, it looks like 2010 will remind us of the scandal years in the Clinton administration.

I find myself increasingly cynical about the public benefits of these issues. It is a given that I am going to pay more taxes but for the life of me I cannot tell you what the TARP bill and the stimulus bill have accomplished. It is pretty easy to see that most businesses are looking at much lower sales. It is not surprising that these businesses have laid off people and not going to rehire them until sales improves. The administration seems oblivious to this simple economic principal. So far the TARP bill and the stimulus bill have created a recovery so mediocre that many people wonder whether the stimulus bills were worth the effort. The economic predictions used to justify the stimulus bill were way off the mark and the economic predictions for 2010 continue to deteriorate. The people understand the deficit created by these bills and are scared. What are we paying for? Considering how poorly the administration has done with the managing the economy, why should anyone expect the Waxman-Markley bill will be a modest impact on the economy as claimed by the administration. Over the last six months I gradually accepted the position that these bills are politically motivated and unnecessary. While the country looks at double digit unemployment, higher taxes, and an astronomical deficit, some friend of a congressman will be doing pretty good selling something “green” to the government. With the unwillingness of the EPA to entertain opposing view points on crucial issues, it is difficult to temper my pessimism about these issues. I have lost all faith that this administration can do anything right except kill flies. The Waxman-Markley bill looks like another scandal waiting in the wings.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Correlation

bill — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:53:02 +0000

Correlation
Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 GMT

I got a good chuckle out of this. But then I find the blog, Climate Audit, and the article by Bruce McCullough and Ross McKitrick entitled, Check the numbers; From the U. S. subprime crisis to global warming, bad research is driving disastrous public policy, to be integral and necessary to complete the scientific method.

Here are some related posts:

Science Journal – WSJ.com We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar…
Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate In essence, science is nothing more than a method of…
Greatest Danger But Reich concludes his article with a stunning and surprising…

A Thought Experiment for Scientists With all of the talk about the Climategate emails I...
Climategate: The Smoking Gun The article published at Pajamas Media, Climategate Computer Codes Are...
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws… I agree with Ann Althouse that the admissions make the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I am ready for the winter to end!

bill — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:00:01 +0000

It is snowing again! I live near Cincinnati and last year by reckoning was the coldest winter since we moved here in 1999. It was cold and we had several snow storms that snowed us in. This year was colder and we seemed to have more snow. I had two 30 mile commutes that took nearly 4 1/2 hours due to snow and ice. Without a doubt it was cold. My car has a thermometer that measures outside air. The previous record low I had seen on my car thermometer was zero degrees. This year I saw multiple record low temperatures with the final record being –10 degrees. I am amused that the smart climate science are just now beginning to realize the obvious. The World Climate report posted this congressional testimony, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Testimony. Duh!

Things that make me go hmm… No statistically significant warming since 1995 I am beginning to think that this global warming crisis...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

McCullough and McKitrick on Due Diligence

bill — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:41:56 +0000

Climate Audit pointed out an interesting article by Bruce McCullough and Ross McKitrick entitled Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation. They point out a common fallacy ‘peer reviewed’ journals is that no one checks the data. This becomes more than a academic journal problem when the report is used to formulate public policies.

Empirical research in what are commonly called ‘peer-reviewed’ academic journals is often used as the basis for public policy decisions, in part because people think that ‘peer-review’ involves checking the accuracy of the research. That might have been the case in the distant past, but times have long since changed. Academic journals rarely, if ever, check data and calculations for accuracy during the review process, nor do they claim to. Journal editors only claim that in selecting a paper for publication they think it merits examination by the research community.

Check the numbers; From the U. S. subprime crisis to global warming, bad research is driving disastrous public policy

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws… I agree with Ann Althouse that the admissions make the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Passing the Laugh Test

bill — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:53:22 +0000

Early in my college career I learned that I needed to check my work if I wanted to pass the courses. I am pretty sure it was one of my engineering professors who recommended that I develop a way to quickly estimate the answer as a way of confirming my answer. He said I was far more likely to receive partial credit if I could show an estimate that was close to the actual answer as part of my answer. From his viewpoint a correct estimate showed that I had a clue how to solve the problem even though my calculations may of come up with the wrong answer. I called this process, “Passing the Laugh Test”. On the other hand if my answer was way off and I could not demonstrate that I had a clue about what the answer should look like, I was out of luck. If I tried to go to the professor and ask for partial credit, I was going to get laughed at. It was cruel but it worked. Creating a “Laugh Test” estimate on a variety of problems has kept me out of a lot of embarrassing mistakes over the years.

That brings me to one of the great chuckles of the week. NASA screwed up the temperature graphs again. Despite anecdotal incidents of cold weather in the Northern hemisphere such as snow on the same day as the Parliament debate on global warming last month, NASA reported a 10 degree temperature jump in the October temperature data from Russia. I cannot imagine what the NASA folks were thinking. They had to know that the folks over at Climate Audit are going over their data with a fine tooth comb and NASA cannot implement a simple “Laugh Test” to avoid public humiliation. Any college sophomore could have created a simple year to year comparison test to avoid this problem. It did not take the folks at Climate Audit very long to come to the conclusion that NASA was using exactly the same temperature data for September and October. They knew that NASA’s answer was wrong and they had a pretty good idea how NASA made the mistake. If the folks at NASA making the mistake were college sophomores trying to scrounge up some partial credit on a missed answer, they would have been laughed at by their professor. They failed the “Laugh Test”. The only folks not laughing is the coal industry and the electrical utilities.

One of the best explanations of the blunder comes in this article from the Telegraph, The world has never seen such freezing heat.

Things that make me go hmm… No statistically significant warming since 1995 I am beginning to think that this global warming crisis...
A Thought Experiment for Scientists With all of the talk about the Climategate emails I...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.