The bunny curve
Kristen Byrnes has thrown in the towel,
UPDATE: The green line in the graph above is incorrectly drawn over the temperature graph. The temperature graph itself can no longer be trusted anymore because of the problems with the temperature stations (see follies in measuring global warming). Hopefully the problems with the temperature stations will be fixed soon and I'll see if I can find someone who can draw with a mouse better than me.So the mice decided to help and drew the bunny curve, which really needs to be clicked on to be appreciated.
Eli has entered this in the Alex Higgens competition, open at Deltoid
To find the most intense, most unembarassed self-pitying whinge from an AGW denialist...Vote early, vote often
Posts
84 comments:
Wrong COLOR, bunnies.
I know you love orange, but that added line there in carrot-color just disappears against the background.
You probably used one of those computer thingies, and that's why the added little boxes obscure the background, also graphically poor.
Tsk. Old ways are best. When I draw with a mouse, I dip his little tail in the ink and then lead him to walk across the paper by dangling a tasty mealworm or other grub on a string.
You know why a raven is like a writing desk? They both have inky quills ....
That's hilarious Eli,
What do you suppose the chance is that she will actually add it to her website? (Greater than 10^(-100)? or less?)
That would get her an A in my class for sure, regardless of whatever else she had in her report.
But don't relax on your haunches just yet, Eli.
It appears that you still have not fulfilled her request.
After all, she did say "I'll see if I can find someone who can draw with a mouse" -- not a rabbit (silly wabett)
--Horatio algeranon
More interesting is that she apparently thinks that scientific data are supposed to be drawn by hand with a mouse. Are all the overlaid curves here just drawn in with a mouse too? Are they just what she thinks the curve ought to look like (bad), or are they hand-copied from real graphs (not great), or are they plotted from the actual numerical data (good)?
My 14 year old niece knows how to graph with excell, but I'm not sure all junior highs (or even high schools) teach it -- though there's no reason why they can't/shouldn't, since they could easily teach the basics in one period (or less).
What bugs me is not so much a 15teen year old girl getting things wrong as how she is being used by airheads to promote there own ideas. At 15teen you are very influenced by what other peoples tell you and how you look in front of your “friends” but what is here father on? And researchers like Richard Tol comparing her work to Nicolas Sterns... what is it? Is it plain old envy?
What most HS and JrHS students in the US use are graphing calculators, and then they get to college and find that they cannot use them on tests because students can put huge cheat sheets into memory.
True, they use the graphing calculators in math and science.
But many schools also have computer labs (and computer classes) where kids learn how to use software like excel, powerpoint etc.
but it's probably not mandatory at every school, though it should be.
Since she knows how to use a mouse, she could probably just erase the green line on your graph, eli and voila, she has the graph she wants (or maybe not).
Or better yet, some photo-editing software allows you to select and remove things based on color.
have you considered patenting your graphing tool, by the way?
you could call it the "Happy Bunny Trails" TM graphing tool or something along those lines (just remember to throw us mice a few crumbs every once in while after you make your millions)
Your graph is clearly wrong. There was a climatic shift in the 1970s. This implies the bunnies from 1970 to present should be pointed in the opposite direction.
By the way, is there some deep significance to the change in the size of Bugs at different points on your graph?
I mean, does it have something to do with the rate of increase of the Bugs forcing?
or was there just something extra in the carrot juice this morning?
Eli, I'm afraid I'd class her admission as having arrogance where the self-pity bit should have been.
Also, I notice over at CA that David Parker made the mistake of playing their game. RP Sr. joined in to demand that Parker respond to his nocturnal surface layer stuff, which DP appears to have declined to do.
Note to first anonymouse: They're Scotch-Irish bunnies, and this is hopping season.
Perhaps NOAA should put little pictures like this on their graphs.
oops,
Try again
Hey, Eli, you should give her THIS one. It shows there's hope.
And it'll confuse the heck out of her step-grapher
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_09/fig1.gif
Eli, I'm afraid I'd class her admission as having arrogance where the self-pity bit should have been.'
And technically, i'd have to say she has not thrown in the towel yet, by any means, since she still has not fixed th graph -- and she makes it sound like it is a simple drawing problem, which it is not, of course.
Every time someone visits her site and sees the graph, she makes another convert as far as i can see.
Most people can't understand all the technical mumbo jumbo about sunspots, cosmic rays and the like, but they can see whether two graphs match up and the ones she has displayed don't.
so, until she fixes the graph, she's not off the hook as far as I am concerned.
"Kristen Byrnes has thrown in the towel"
Perhaps, but shall she Launder the Ponder the Maunder, I wonder (though I fear it's beyond her)?
It sure may be beyond her,
That Ponder-Monder-launder,
But denialists who have conned her.
Of nothing could be fonder,
Than to cause a kid to wander,
Into the great blue yonder.
Before it ever dawns on her,
That they're using her as a pawn there.
Either she'll fix it in the next few years as Judith Curry suggested she do, and get into a decent school, or she won't.
Time to move on.
Poor kid.
Steve Bloom:
I went over to CA to see what you were talking about. I couldn't stay. Thank you for going there so we don't have to.
Best,
D
But has she really "thrown in the towel" or is she just moving the goal posts?
The temperature graph itself can no longer be trusted anymore because of the problems with the temperature stations (see follies in measuring global warming).
She's giving with one hand, taking with the other. To the extent she's getting a lot of positive reinforcement from the CA gang, the only hope I have for her future is if she takes up biology.
If she's thrown in the towel, she still has one hand on it...
She has not fixed the graph and it is still preceded by the same false text as before:
"What Al does not show you is that most of the warming started before the CO2 increase."
Simply not true.
No one says "oh drat I really blew it" anymore, but you can see the give up in their eyes.
I've decided that the "debate" over Kristen "Coulter" Byrnes is futile, although it's funny those oh-so-scientifically-strict ClimateAuditors are fawning all over her. Fixing her phony graph is futile -- in other words -- don't pander to the meander!
-- Carl
Google is god
One thing that really disturbs me about the AGW debate is how many people, including our young high school friend, are willing -- almost eager -- to completely give no authority at all to established sources of information (i.e. journals such as Nature, Geo Phys Res Letters etc).
Now, I don't have the scientific training to discount the sceptics from the fundamental arguments, but I grew up trusting that scientists as a group are highly motivated to get things right, or at least have the humility to expose fraudsters in their midst (just look at how quickly it took to expose the S Korean "human cloning" fraudster).
Have I just fallen prey to the argument from authority? Perhaps, but it seems to be that trusting authority saves a lot of time when these authorities as a group (doctors, architects, etc.) have set up processes that encourage transparency.
The sceptics would have us believe that they're questioning authority and that's healthy. But watching the me-too scrum over at CA, I realise they've just replaced knee-jerk acceptance of one form of authority for another.
Atta way to show a 15-year old!
The deniers have a child. We should either get 1) a midget, so we could race 'em or have 'em wrestle for supremacy, or 2) something like an intelligent duck, that does climate science by pointing to scientific equations with its beak. With these guys you gotta fight fire with fire.
Also, I am predicting that now that The Sun didn't pan out, the deniers will move to attacking the instrument record via Watts, Climate Audit, and Pielke. Canada's in-house group (the NRSP) is already starting to tout "land use changes" as the primary cause of GW. A month ago it was "solar cycles".
You know, I thought the same thing about the sun after Lockwood's study but old habits die hard. There were a few articles posted criticising Lockwood's study and the skeptic blogs leapt onto these with relief, glad to sink back into the 'it's all the sun' argument. So I'm not sure Lockwood's study made barely a dent. The funniest response was on Free Republic where someone found a photo of Lockwood sitting on a huge hand as a chair, crowing about how he didn't look like a real scientist therefore his results couldn't possibly have any scientific validity.
You know 9:12, there is a lot more in there that is dodgy to say the least, and Eli has held off, but consider the 15 year old's responses to folk like Judith Curry and Jules Virdee. The young lady needs to be taken aside and talked to, but given the build up she is not in a mood to listen and there are a lot of folk pushing her forward. Sad
big city lib said "We should get...an intelligent duck, that does climate science by pointing to scientific equations with its beak. With these guys you gotta fight fire with fire."
Yes, but our side (of science and reason) has the ultimate weapon: The Intelligent Rabett TM (well, most of the time, at least)
And with regard to ducks, in a battle of wits, the rabbit always wins, remember?
Eli said: "You know 9:12, there is a lot more in there that is dodgy to say the least..."
The more I look at this, the less sense it makes, particularly her response to those on Climate Audit like Curry, Virdee (and many others as well)
It's weird. It's almost like someone is preventing her from changing anything, even if it is wrong.
And look at what she added under her graph:
"The temperature graph itself can no longer be trusted anymore"[sic]
The grammar of that one sentence is completely inconsistent with the grammar employed for the vast majority of her report -- though the meaning is consistent with the tone of the whole report, of course.
That's the strategy:
1. Find adorable proxy.
2. Feed adorable proxy the old standbys (and some new tricks too).
3. Laud adorable proxy.
4. Attack anyone who disagrees with adorable proxy as a hater of the adorable and a general meanie.
5. Profit.
Congrats to 9:12 for fulfilling the prophecy.
9:12 says: Spare me. Both sides are spending way too much time on the musings of a 15 year old. One side trots her out and the other slaps her silly.
Let's get back to real science.
"Both sides are spending way too much time on the musings of a 15 year old"
I would agree, but it's entertaining nonetheless, especially the comments over at Climate Audit.
They seem to have gone into triple-wing-nut overdrive mode, the way they are fawning all over Byrnes' paper and attacking anyone who questions her graphs and the source of her data.
It's as if she has somehow discovered the long sought-after cure for what ails them.
Who knows, perhaps she has.
This whole blogospheric debate over Kristen Byrne's web site is definitely the most entertaining and interesting (from a sociological point of view) thing going on in the climate world right now. Eli thanks much for your graph, I am a huge bugs bunny fan.
"They seem to have gone into triple-wing-nut overdrive mode.."
Best quip I've seen for some time. Now recovering my composure...
Dr. Curry.
Why are you trying to help this kid?
Do you get any funding from Oil companies?
Honestly, it's not so much a self-pitying whinge as it is a restatement, a raising of the stakes on, the position that you can't get good temperature and climate data.
It's "Yes, my curve is wrong, but it's exactly what I was saying - the DATA is bad!"
So you have to, if you're not doing the sensible thing and ignoring her, go back to the same point - that our climate stations do a reasonable job of gathering data and that, in particular, our combined methods of generating temperature and climate data don't artificially create trends.
Seriously, the denialists would NOT see her as throwing in the towel. For the above reason.
Now I understand what the Climate Auditors are referring to when they say they want to "get all the bugs out of the climate data."
>>Do you get any funding from Oil
>>companies?
HAHA! I imagine Dr. Curry is given kristen the benefit of the doubt and trying to steer her towards a more scientific outlook, i.e. admitting her mistakes and amending her procedures.
I was sort of like that at the start, indeed if I could scrape up 10 full-paid spots for students at EGU or AGU I would throw Kristen a spot. I'm not so sure she isn't just driven by the "evil stepdad" (he of the "enviro-terrorism emails will be forwarded to the FBI" dittohead stripe). The best defense they can come up with is "but what about Mann" -- "but what about Briffa" -- "but what about these temp monitor stations next to an air conditioner." Pathetic. Just like when the Republicans get caught all they can say is "but Democrats embezzled money too!"
It's more interesting to watch how quickly the "ClimateAuditors" toss out their fundamentalist, "strict science" hype in favor of promoting Kristen's mistakes! I anxiously await Kristen to be published in "Energy & Environment" next.
-- Carl
Magnus: I doubt there's any envy there. Just blatant amorality. Full professorship in bread-butterology in the works.
Eli, I did the same thing with the the total forcing (from the Schwartz graph).
I found that it lines up even better with the temp increase over that 1880-2000 period (ie, better than the CO2 increase that you have shown)
The match for total forcing is best if you scale the forcing axis so that 2 W/m2 has about the same height as the total temp anomaly over that period (.7C) and make the forcing in 1880 start about where Byrne's green line does (crossing the the anomaly scale at about the -.3 tick mark)
That way the forcing line basically "splits the difference" on the "sinewave" on the temp graph between about 1900 - 1910. Also, the "plateau" in forcing around 1950-1955 then matches up with the plateau in temperature anomaly around the same time.
Thanks Eli (and Kristen).
I am now more convinced than ever that greenhouse gases are driving the temperature increase!
Carl said: "The best defense they can come up with is ..."but what about these temp monitor stations next to an air conditioner." Pathetic."
I have to disagree. I think the temperature monitors next to the air conditioners are pretty bad (clueless, really). There's no excuse for that kind of stuff.
But I would also have to say that there is a very big difference between saying
"Look, we have a problem with some of these stations and we should make sure 1) it is not prevalent 2) that it has not significantly affected the overall results" (a valid scientific criticism)
and saying that
"The temperature graph itself can no longer be trusted anymore because of the problems with the temperature stations" (a bit premature -- and immature -- at this stage of the game)
Anon 11:52:
Why clueless though? I have assumed with alot of these stations that the answer to "why there?" is "Well, that's the only place we could find." The assumption being that you want data, any data, and you will apply some kind of correction to it.
When I read the NOAA station site manual, they ranked the sites by desirability, but it didn't say (as far as I could tell) DON'T use a station below a certain grade.
sn, Judy is in no way in the pay of or under the influence of oil companies or similar entities, rather she suffers from the dreaded perfesser syndrome and thus derives pleasure from the process of guiding callow youth to the scientific light. As she says, the sociological aspects are of considerable interest even failing any sort of conversion experience on the part of KB.
FYI, Judy is a very well-respected climate scientist and is presently chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. Her recent Congressional testimony may be of interest.
well hell, let's take this further -- why should we trust that the "Climate Auditors" really know these are temperature monitoring stations next to barbecues/air conditioners/etc. They have absolutely no credibility; and all we see are pictures of boxes next to AC's etc. So we should just assume these vested interests really are 100% sure these are in fact temp monitors next to barbecues etc? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence even in this, and they haven't proved their case.
"why should we trust that the "Climate Auditors" really know these are temperature monitoring stations next to barbecues/air conditioners/etc."
One need not take their word for anything.
But it's easy enough to simply verify .
If I were a climate scientist and someone showed me a picture of a temperature station with an air-conditioner right next to it, my first inclination would be to actually check it out and see if the problem is real. That's easy enough, right?
As far as having an air conditioner right next to a temperature monitor, I'd really have to say that it is clueless on the part of whoever put the two in close proximity.
If there is an existing temp monitor there, why would someone install an air conditioner next to it? and vice versa? I simply can't believe that there would be a case where one would have to put one right next to the other -- and given the option of not putting them in close proximity to one another, why would you do it?
As far as "correcting' for the possible effects of air conditioners, I'd say that it is better not have to even guess (which is what you would essentially have to do in the case where one was right next to the other). It may be difficult if not impossible to determine what the introduced bias might have been under the circumstances. The effect might not even be uniform (might depend on whether this any wind, the direction of the wind, rain, etc)
There are very valid reasons for doing corrections (when a station is moved, for example), but it simply makes no sense (at least not to me) to include air conditioners in the equation.
But then maybe I'm juts old fashioned. I learned science in the old school where you tried to eliminate all the extraneous variables that you possibly could.
>first inclination would be to
>actually check it out and see if the
>problem is real.
so have the "climate auditors" brought it to anyone important's attention, or did they just run off to create another spurious website? seems to be the latter. or perhaps, in light of receding glaciers, ice sheets, etc, whingeing about alleged temp monitor stations next to air conditioners in Maine isn't that big of a deal. they'll still be bitching about this invented "crises" or "smoking guns" even as the last polar bear drowns! ;-)
"so have the "climate auditors" brought it to anyone important's attention, or did they just run off to create another spurious website?"
I can't remark on that because i honestly don't know.
But I do think the issue of air conditioners and temperature monitors is a legitimate one and I somehow doubt that people are just air(conditioner) brushing these things into the photos.
But I could be wrong. I have been before ...once, back in '68 (or was it '67?)
I just checked my diary and it was '67, so that would make twice now.
Eli's graph shows CO2 increase, but if you wish to see how the same NOAA graph looks with Total Greenhouse gas forcing superimposed on it, you may view it at my place, Horatio Algeranon's
12:58: I don't know that I would call it cluelessness. I think it is well-meaning pragmatism.
The facilities person who installed the AC unit is likely not the same facilities person who installed the MMTS. And even if they were, I seriously doubt anyone handed that person a manual and told him/her that they had to conform to a certain set of recommendations. The contractor who buried the propane tank probably never thought twice about moving the silly-looking box out of his way so that the backhoe could get in and do its work. Move it back?? Hah, he forgot it even existed.
Later, it never occurred to the groundskeeper who planted the white pine fifteen feet away from the station - in an attempt to hide the propane tank and protective barriers - that doing such a thing might introduce a gradual bias to the measurements being collected by the nearby station.
Who do you think takes the daily measurements from these sites? Someone who spent a week at a NOAA-sponsored course on temperature measurements and then makes $55K a year doing nothing but collecting the data from the sensor? Heavens no. It is some low-level facilities employee who gets delegated the job as part of their various other duties. Turn-over is relatively high. Eventually, an employee carries enough clout our sales skills to convince their supervisor to bolt the system to the side of the building so that they no longer have to weed-whack around it.
Similar things happen at private residences. After Pa passes away, Ma McGillicutty gets tired of looking at the box out her kitchen window and asks junior to move it to a less obvious location at the side of the house. Ma eventually passes on and junior, in the process of selling the family homestead, informs NOAA that they need to move the abomination somewhere else so that it does not drag down his drive-by value.
Alternatively, Pa is still alive and decides to move it to the roof at the same time he installs the DirecTV. This after moving the station around several times at Ma's behest because it was first in the way of her vegetable garden and later in too conspicuous a place for the bridge-club barbecue she wanted to host. When he does make the move it is a crisp fall day and neither the AC or grill are running, so Pa has no clue that what he is doing might introduce a bias to the temperatures he has volunteered to record.
All well-meaning changes with no underlying agenda whatsoever. But not science.
"All well-meaning changes with no underlying agenda whatsoever."
I don't doubt that.
I agree my "clueless" comment was uncalled for (clueless?)
but that whatever the reason for the air conditioners, they don't mix with temp sensors.
The goal should not be to assign blame, at any rate, but to fix any stations that have problems and make sure that the overall result has not been significantly affected.
Actually, John, it DOES sound like you're accusing people of being clueless, nay downright stupid, on a massive scale. Which is why I am inclined to doubt your little just so story.
And you expect Watts volounteers, culled from listeners to the Rush Limbaugh show and readers of Newsbusters, are likely to do a better job?
Mr. Big: Piffle. I do believe the sitings are honest adaptations to the day-to-day operational realities of the curators. I wrote what I would do while working grounds in college, and what my mother would do when planning a neighborhood get-together. I do not think any of it is stupid. It is reality.
Your last sentence gave me pause. Are you saying Anthony Watt's volunteers have been asked to make modifications to the station sitings?
Horatio, may we honor you as the first Rabett Run spinoff??
I am honored that you would consider me, Eli (really i am) but I don't think I'm quite twisted enough to be one of your spin-offs(not yet anyway, but give me another ten years and maybe...)
bigcitylib: The assumption being that you want data, any data, and you will apply some kind of correction to it.
What's the correction factor for an AC unit? Parking lot? BBQ? Change of paint used? Large brick wall?
And also are all these multipliers documented? Were the environmental conditions around the units even documented?
but consider the 15 year old's responses to folk like Judith Curry and Jules Virdee.
Link me plz. It seems like I've been missing out.
heh nevermind I found it....
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1816#comment-120148
OK, so I had to wade through the CA comments (at least some). Ugh. Has anyone asked whether the the choice of stations to "analyze" is random? Wouldn't it be nice if I could conduct a clinical trial in which I select which patients to put into which groups, and announce the results when the study has enrolled a small fraction of the unrepresentative sample. And the big fuss about the AC units - do these things run DURING THE WINTER? Is the compressor on full all night? Aren't smart people looking at the anomalies in the anomalies? Geez - why do people assume that the scientists who make a living studying these things are stoopid [sic]? Enough rant. Thank you. And sorry about the shouting.
Reading further into the CA thread, I see Eli has already brought up the winter argument (#179). GRTA?
Wouldn't it be nice if I could conduct a clinical trial in which I select which patients to put into which groups, and announce the results when the study has enrolled a small fraction of the unrepresentative sample. And the big fuss about the AC units - do these things run DURING THE WINTER?
Yes, many of them do run during the winter -- as heat pumps! (So much for *that* warming bias....)
Descriptions of the USHCN and how the data is treated can be found here.
NOAA 's(n) Ark?
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrGH
On behalf of us all
So why not make this a less funny and more usable chart? It actually seems like the idea was good and the result when done correctly is informative.
Deech,
They aren't even measuring temps. They have a problem with temps but aren't measuring them.
You tell me how serious they are. As they run around in big shoes, red balls on their noses, honking horns.
Best,
D
Hi Deech, we did that, and were told it had to be on 8.5 x 11 paper in full color and exactly as the young lady wanted. We were merely returning serve with some backspin.
You can see the various plots in less artistic format can be seen
in this earlier post
This can be a snark infested blog, but at heart we always welcome serious inquiries and occasionaly can answer them
"So why not make this a less funny and more usable chart?"
Sometimes funny is good and especially in this case.
I noticed Kristen Byrnes has updated here graph and it now has two vastly different CO2 lines on it (both of them green!) and as she says in the "2nd UPDATE" below the graph, it took the college prof who drew it (with a mouse again?) 11 times to get it "close"! (his word, not mine)
If that's not funny, I don't know what is.
Deech,
I have seen the question of randomness asked before. From the photography standpoint the goal is to create a photographic record of all sites, so if that goal is achieved then the question of randomness is moot. Between now and then site selection criteria is a valid question. It is my belief that it is purely based on the proximity of sites to the existing pool of volunteers. To the best of my knowledge no one has gone to a site and decided not to create a photographic record upon discovering the site is well-maintained and well-sited.
Once the surveys are posted anyone is free to cherry-pick the photographic record and use it as a basis of analysis.
Good question on the AC units. My personal feeling, having walked up to a few AC units while running, is that they would not affect the temperature reading unless within six feet plus/minus, depending on the type of unit. My opinion is that proximity to buildings and tall trees probably has a greater effect.
Thank you, john goetz, et al. In the CA thread, there was a (mostly ignored) post about the heat output and venting from an AC unit - which is mostly up. When I went to the photo record site site to see what's up (or whatever), the details about data (photo) collection methods were not apparent. Been talking to too many statisticians to trust preliminary data collected non-randomly, which seems to be the case.
Anon at 10:37, because it is easier to make fun of it than to make a graph that can't be criticized.
Well 10:37, and 8:10, the information was all in the graphs of Eli's original comment on "Ponder the Maunder" and there were links to places where the digital data could be downloaded. Moreover, in answer to Hans Erren's comment (which was excellent) Eli provided an update which showed the NOAA temperature series together with the greenhouse gas forcings.
In other words, the information was provided.
Part of being a teacher is learning NOT to do the work for the student but providing the student the tools she needs. Kristen's replies were a typical student tactic to get both attention and the answer without doing the work. There is a price to pay for that, thus the bunny curve, and Horatio's NOAA's ark.
There was a little discussion above as to whether the CA crowd thinks climate scientists are stupid. In a direct sense no, since what they believe is that the scientists are engaging in fraud, conspiracy and cover-up. OTOH there's an undeniable implication of stupidity since a scientist would have to be pretty stupid to be caught out by the likes of the CA crowd.
Deech: The randomness is whomever the volunteer happens to turn out to be, they survey near them or near where they take trips. It's not just photos, there's also a survey. All the stuff is up at Watts site for anyone to look at, including the data. The goal is to audit them all. I would imagine that the volunteers mainly just want to collect good data to help ascertain the quality of the network, which has been touted as "high quality". The audit will show if it is, or if it isn't. However, I'm sure some of the volunteers will be biased one way or the other.
There are many other factors other than just A/C units. Surface, nearby items, etc. Once enough stations have been looked at, they can be analyzed to see where things stand. The fact that this information is not already available, and hasn't been done periodically already by the people running the network is a little disturbing to me.
If they are not doing it, somebody should, and it seems to me that it's them.
If the GHCN people aren't validating the rules are being followed, to ensure the data is correct, somebody should, and I suppose it's the Watts folks.
"The goal is to audit them all."
"If the GHCN people aren't validating the rules are being followed, to ensure the data is correct, somebody should, and I suppose it's the Watts folks."
Precisely what does that mean?
Where is the detailed list of procedures being followed in this case?
Who is doing the "auditing"?
What is the expertise and training of th auditors?
Surely, you don't mean to imply every Tom Dick posting on Climate Audit will be doing it?
And yes, it does matter.
I see no problem with untrained volunteers taking photos of sites but when it comes to auditing data and auditing sites there should be a very specific set of procedures that is followed and the people doing the auditing should be trained and credentialed in that area.
Presumably someone GISS or NOAA, or NWS or some other government agency must already have such a set of procedures and trained personnel for that purpose.
Picking on a teenage girl. Reminds me of the subtle bullying when I first entered the academic arena. First few years I was crushed by it, but later I came to realize that the most bullying, cynical, elitist characters were typically the most screwed up inside. They were more often than not very angry men (plus the odd angry woman). They were pathetic, petty, small minded punks who were destined for nothinghood.
Anonymous at 3:46 PM is exactly right. Consistency of observations and data collection are essential if anyone is to believe the data. Studies that use different observers, such as multi-center clinical trials, all work from the same set of standard operating procedures, that are known to have some relevance to the task at hand, and that have undergone some level of review. Otherwise, ten different people will report ten different findings.
As far as the "picking on teenage girls" comment, I'd say it would only apply if Eli were a bully -- ie, if he were picking on Kristen Byrnes only (or primarily) because of her age -- ie, taking advnatage of the fact that she has little credibility in the climate science area (I'm not sure whether she hoped to improve that by joining globalwarminghoax.com)
Unfortunately, for the one making the comment, your theory falls apart when you consider the fact that Eli has also "picked on" the big wigs: Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, and others.
Besides, I'd say Eli has been very fair in this case. He pointed out the errors in her graph to her and told her where to get the correct data -- nay showed her the correct data. He even made the graph for her -- Though she may not have liked the bunnies (but that her problem, not his).
he could have been much harder on her, since the graph in question is hardly the only thing she got wrong in that Ponder the Maunder piece.
Again, the Watts folks aren't measuring temperatures.
So for the commenters thinking that they are validating, you are projecting your big fat wish.
It is a stunt.
When they start measuring temps, its an audit.
When they take pictures, it is a stunt.
Temps = audit. Pix = stunt.
Not hard. Not hard at all.
Best,
D
Vernon says,
I ask two questions that are tied to the very underpinning of the CO2 theory.
1. If the proxies show that warming peaked early in the 20th century and is lower at the end of the century, what does this do to the CO2 argument? The first problem I see this causing is that the proxies do not match the instrumented readings. This is a major problem for the theory because it means either we do not know how to measure the global temperature with direct measurements or the proxies are not representing the actual temperature. If either is true then there is no way to know if the warming now is exceptional or not.
Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation (2006) M. N. Juckes, M. R. Allen, K. R. Briffa, J. Esper, G. C. Hegerl, A. Moberg,
T. J. Osborn, S. L. Weber, and E. Zorita soft copy can be found here:
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-2-1001.pdf or hard copy can be found at Science Vol. 311, Issue 5762, pp. 841 - 844 10 February 2006.
If you look at the right edge of the chart, it clearly shows that the proxies show lower temperatures than the instrumented readings and that the highest proxy measured temperatures happened before the end of the century. None of the studies show the proxy readings matching the instrumented readings at the end of the century.
2. It has been stated that sea level change is accelerating however there are some issues with what is causing sea level change and whether there is any acceleration or not. There are two means of measuring sea level change: tide gauges and satellite measurements. Both means have problems. Tide gauges have problems:
Interannual sea level change at global and regional scales using Jason-1 altimetry A. Cazenave, K. Do Minh, J.F. Cretaux, C. Cabanes, S. Mangiarotti (LEGOS, France)
Can be found at: http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/invest-cazenave.html
tide gauges have two drawbacks:
1. their geographical distribution provides very poor sampling of the ocean basins, especially when studying the climatic signal over the past century, and
2. they measure sea level relative to the land, hence recording vertical crustal motions that may be of the same order of magnitude as the sea level variation.
Satellites have issues with accuracy, namely that the orbit accuracy does not exceed 2cm and therefore the most accurate reading possible is +/- 2cm. This can be seen in:
Jason-1 precision orbit verification, J.C. Ries, B.D. Tapley, R.J. Eanes, H.J. Rim which can be found at: http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/science/invest-ries.html
The current models for the forces acting on the T/P spacecraft, combined with high accuracy ground-based tracking, support an orbit accuracy approaching 2 cm radial RMS (root-mean-squared), an unprecedented level of orbit accuracy for an altimeter satellite.
When combining measurements with different degrees of accuracy and precision, the accuracy of the final answer can be no greater than the least accurate measurement. This principle can be translated into a simple rule for addition and subtraction: When measurements are added or subtracted, the answer can contain no more decimal places than the least accurate measurement. When the best reading you can get is +/- 20mm, then no amount of readings will allow the precision to be better than 2cm. This seems to be ignored by climatologist. If your accuracy can only be measured down to the cm, then there is no way to get an answer that is at the mm level.
PRESENT-DAY SEA LEVEL CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS AND CAUSES (2003) A. Cazenave and R. S. Nerem which can be found here http://www.eila.jussieu.fr/~avolansk/PDFS_a_convertir/Cazenave2003RG000139.pdf.
In effect, the observed value is more than twice as large as the revised estimate of the total climate contributions, although there is complete overlap between their respective uncertainties. It thus appears that either the climate-related processes causing sea level rise have been underestimated or the rate of sea level rise observed with tide gauges is in error. Munk [2002] refers to this as ‘‘The Enigma.’’
Twentieth century sea level: An enigma, Walter Munk can be found at: PNAS | May 14, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 10 | 6550-6555 or online at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/10/6550
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes about 6 cm/century to melting and other eustatic processes, leaving a residual of 12 cm of 20th century rise to be accounted for. The Levitus compilation has virtually foreclosed the attribution of the residual rise to ocean warming (notwithstanding our ignorance of the abyssal and Southern Oceans): the historic rise started too early, has too linear a trend, and is too large. Melting of polar ice sheets at the upper limit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates could close the gap, but severe limits are imposed by the observed perturbations in Earth rotation. Among possible resolutions of the enigma are: a substantial reduction from traditional estimates (including ours) of 1.5-2 mm/y global sea level rise; a substantial increase in the estimates of 20th century ocean heat storage; and a substantial change in the interpretation of the astronomic record.
We know that the Antarctic is not contributing to rising sea levels from Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet (2006) by Wingham, Shepherd, Muir, and Marshall which can be found here: http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf
Together, these values provide Antarctic sea level contributions in the range -0.12 +/-0.17 mm yrK-1 and improvement in certainty requires measurements with increased scope or accuracy.
Further we know that the sea level rise is not uniform but rather regional from Cazenave(2003).
While in tide gauge-derived sea level studies most investigators assumed uniform sea level change, now we have, for the first time, unambiguous evidence of regional variability of sea level change, some regions exhibiting sea level trends about 10 times the global mean. It is in the western Pacific and eastern Indian Oceans that sea level rise presents the highest magnitude. It is also worth noting that the whole Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during the past decade. In contrast, Figure 7 shows that sea level has been dropping in some regions (eastern Pacific and western Indian Oceans), even though in terms of global mean, sea level has been rising.
Basically what this indicates is that we do not understand sea level change, we are not sure of what the sources of it are and to say that it is increasing now more than in the past cannot be proven.
These two issues must be addressed by those that support the CO2 theory of AGW or the theory is not valid. The mere fact that when something that does not support the theory, such as mid 20th century cooling is blamed on aerosols when no studies show any change in aerosols, or that some unknown amount of aerosol is off setting supposed CO2 warming in the Arctic when the UC Irvine study shows that 35 – 96 percent of the warming and melting is due to ‘dirty snow’ then I will remain a skeptic and this is being coming dogma and not science.
I just noticed on the "ponder" website that the graph in question now has an additional line which fairly resembles the one provided by Eli.
The new line is accompanied by a rather surly notice:
"2nd UPDATE: The update above is regarding the light green line drawn by me. The darker green line was added by a college professor who teaches atmospheric science and complained about having finally gotten it close after 11 tries."
Post a Comment