Friday, August 10, 2007

The "Value" Of McIntyre's Discovery

DailyTech Blogger Michael Asher sees through to the nub of significance within Steve McIntyre's discovery of errors in the GHCN weather data:

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

In other words, Steve's achievement is a propaganda victory (for the forces of climate change skepticism) more than a scientific one (which is not to dispute the fact that McIntyre's work has uncovered a real error in GHCN collection procedures).

Incidentally, it is disingenuous to, as some media outlets have, refer to this error as a result of the Y2K bug. McIntyre himself writes:

By Y2K problem here, I don’t specifically mean that the error is due to 2-digit date formats, but that the error, whatever its source, is observed commencing Jan 2000.

Or at least there has been no evidence provided yet that the error was caused by this specific bug.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

still denying that climate change is natural eh ??

Ti-Guy said...

Shuddup, Kate.

900 ft Jesus said...

depends on what you mean by "natural." It's natural for cows to produce methane, natural that CO2 is produced when a forest burns, natural for a tool making species to make tools and use them.

In that sense, yes, climate change is natural, being boosted significantly by a tool making, tool using species that produces vast amounts of CO2 in its tool making/using endeavours.

Anonymous said...

So first the Warmonger Hanson creates the Hockey Stick. He wipes out the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, he refuses to release his data, his processes, his algorithms - essentially he refutes the Scientific Method. He accepts $250,000 from the Global Warming Hystericals, he lies on public TV (CBC) and then denies he did it. The IPCC & AL Gore tout the Hockey Stick as the PROOF of PROOFS of AGW. They scream it, over and over. Gore still uses the Hockey Stick.

Now we find out Hanson's team, his organization, under his leadership can't do basic arithmetic, still refuses to explain the many types of data manipulation they used to construct the models that support his theory - the one that funds more of his "research" and you think the outcome of this story is minor.

Fraud has been exposed. Massive, government funded, fraud.

This is just the beginning. Next hoax to expose is the British Institute that did the calculations to produce the "baseline" Co2 levels . . they also refuse to release their data sources, their methods.

There is a pattern here . . . gross enviro fraud.

Its gonna be swell when the MSM realizes they have been had by the Enviros & The Goreacle . . their revenge will be extreme

anti-guy said...

more "too bad, so sad" news for you Warmongers.

NEW STUDY: GLOBAL SEA-LEVEL RISE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THOUGHT

Discussing: Woeppelmann, G., Miguez, B.M., Bouin, M.-N. and Altamimi, Z. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change 57: 396-406.

What was done

The authors describe a technique they developed for utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) data, which they obtained from numerous GPS stations situated in close proximity to various tide gauges around the world, to correct the tide gauge records and thus obtain what they call a "set of 'absolute' or geocentric sea-level trends." Based on a number of criteria that had to be met by both the tide gauge and GPS stations, they ultimately used paired data sets from 28 locations that covered a time span of 5.9 years (1999.0-2005.7) to derive their final mean global result, after which they compared it with what they call the "most quoted" tide-gauge results of Douglas (1991, 1997, 2001), which had been corrected for the most common form of vertical land motion by means of theoretical models of Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA).

What was learned

Whereas the data of Douglas yielded a mean global sea-level rate-of-rise of 1.84 ~ 0.35 mm/year after correction for the GIA effect (Peltier, 2001), Woeppelmann et al. obtained a much lower mean value of 1.35 ~ 0.34 mm/year when employing their correction for measured GPS vertical velocities. The sizable difference between these two results raises the question of how they compare with results obtained from other ways of estimating global sea level trends. In this regard, the four researchers note that Mitrovica et al. (2006) recently indicated there is a 1 mm/year contribution to sea-level rise from the melting of global land ice reservoirs, as well as a 0.4 mm/year contribution from thermal expansion of the global ocean (Antonov et al., 2005). Together, these two numbers yield a value of 1.40 mm/year for the global ocean's total sea-level mean rate-of-rise, which is much closer to the 1.35 mm/year result of Woppelmann et al. than to the Douglas-Peltier result of 1.84 mm/year.

What it means

The mean global sea-level rate-of-rise calculated by Woppelmann et al. appears to resolve the "sea-level enigma" noted by Munk (2002), who called attention to the sizable discrepancy that existed at the time of his writing between estimates of climate-related contributions to sea-level change and what the observed value was thought to be. Now, there is no longer any discrepancy between these two numbers. What is more, the global ocean's mean rate-of-rise is now seen to be much slower than what was previously believed to be the case.

900 ft Jesus said...

anonymous, all reports used by IPCC are found on their website, complete with methodology. You lying about it won't make climate change due global warming boosted by human activity go away. However, people like you allow it to get worse because you give countries like China and the US, as well as companies solely motivated by profit to keep pretending the climate isn't changing due to warmning.

anti-guy - why would we be sad if the ocean levels didn't rise? Can you be so deliberately blinded by your desire to be right that you can't see that people fighting to slow down, and cope with inevitable climate change are so concerned because they don't want the destruction and suffering that increasing changes are bringing and will continue to bring?

I have a family. I'd be thrilled to know sea levels won't rise to dangerous levels. For those of us who take this issue seriously, it isn't about us taking pleasure from saying we were right if disasters occur. It's about trying to prevent them.

As for the label "warmonger," you are seriously missing several steps of logic, or you just comment without reading. Those who believe in climate change don't want war. That's one of the reasons we want to get governments and citizens to acknowledge warming and take steps to slow it, and adjust to the changes we can't stop. If we don't, there will be war.

There's a difference between someone who jumps at any reason, or even creates a reason to go to war (that's a warmonger0 and someone who wants to make changes to prevent wars (as believers in climate change state).

Anonymous said...

HELP the GOREACLE !!

Save the Planet !!!


http://youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0

Ti-Guy said...

Shuddup, Kate.

anti-guy - the other one is an asshole . . . said...

August 10, 2007
Freeman Dyson joins GlobWarm skeptics
James Lewis
Professor Freeman Dyson enjoys an awesome reputation in theoretical physics. He works at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, Albert Einstein's old stamping grounds. It is therefore a landmark event when Dyson fiercely denounces the Global Warming mess. Freeman Dyson takes no prisoners.

Here's what he writes

"...all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

Has anybody told Al Gore yet? Here's another "Global Warming denier"! Obviously some ignoramus who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Al? Al??? Where are you?

Anonymous said...

Actually, the change in temperatures for the lower 48 states, after this correction, is 0.15C.
The lower 48 states are about 2% of the planet's surface area.

0.15C x .02 = 0.003C.

The total impact of this correction on global trends is 0.003C, out of 0.8 - 1.1C total change since the early part of last century.

Call it 1C for simple calculation, and the total global change from this correction is 0.003C, which is 0.3% of the observed change.

Some massive error, huh?

-Lee

bigcitylib said...

Lee,

I didn't think Asher's orginal calculation could be correct. Thanks for doing the math.

anti-guy..the real one said...

Evangelicals Will Not Take Stand on Global Warming

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page A08

The National Association of Evangelicals said yesterday that it has been unable to reach a consensus on global climate change and will not take a stand on the issue, disappointing environmentalists who had hoped that evangelical Christians would prod the Bush administration to soften its position on global warming.

Over the past four years a growing number of evangelical groups have embraced environmental causes, urging Christians to engage in "Creation care" and campaigning against gas-guzzling SUVs with advertisements asking, "What would Jesus drive?"

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* Sarah Joy Albrecht
* Burke's Blog
* The Evangelical Ecologist


Full List of Blogs (89 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

In October 2004 the leadership of the NAE, which says it has 30 million members and is the nation's largest evangelical organization, declared that mankind has "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." At about the same time, the umbrella group's president, the Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, called the environment "a values issue."

But this fledgling movement -- dubbed the "greening of evangelicals" in a front-page Washington Post article a year ago -- has also met internal resistance. In a letter to Haggard last month, more than 20 evangelical leaders urged the NAE not to adopt "any official position" on global climate change because "Bible-believing evangelicals . . . disagree about the cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue."

The letter's signers amounted to a Who's Who of politically powerful evangelicals, including Charles W. Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; the Rev. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries; the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University; Donald E. Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association; and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

In a written statement yesterday, Haggard denied reports that the NAE had circulated a draft paper calling for the Bush administration to support mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

"Allow me to confirm at the outset that the NAE is not circulating any official document on the environment. We are not considering a position on global warming. We are not advocating for specific legislation or government mandates," Haggard said. His statement added that the NAE's executive committee recently passed a motion "recognizing the ongoing debate" on global warming and "the lack of consensus among the evangelical community on this issue."

Calvin DeWitt, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin who is a leading evangelical supporter of environmental causes, called the statement "a retreat and a defeat."

"A year ago, it looked as though evangelicals would become a strong, collective voice for what we call 'Creation care' and others may call environmentalism," he said. "This will have negative consequences for the ability of evangelicals to influence the White House, unfortunately and sadly."

But E. Calvin Beisner, professor of social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, a conservative Presbyterian school in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., applauded the NAE's non-position.

Beisner, who helped draft the letter to Haggard from evangelical leaders, said they had feared that the NAE was going "to assume as true certain things that we think are still debatable, such as that global warming is not only real but also almost certainly going to be catastrophically harmful; second, that it is being driven to a significant extent by human activity; and third, that some regime, some international treaty for mandatory reductions in CO2emissions, could make a significant enough drop in global emissions to justify the costs to the human economy."

bigcitylib said...

So evangelicals have taken a "non-position". They must be very proud.

Ti-Guy said...

That was me, BCL. I slipped into a sock-puppet and cut 'n pasted some crap about evangelicals and global warming.

*sigh*...I hate wingnuts.

TCO said...

What about people like me who are deliberately trying to burn more carbon every time a hybrid drives by? Will we be shot? What if we taunt others by burning oil?

I still want palm trees and alligators in Virginia. I think they are a very cool subtropical effect. And you can get them in North Carolina. I want them in VA. ASAP. I'm not getting any younger. And the damn climate is not warming fast on the east coast. Just crap places like Hudson Bay and Alaska.

Sigh.

TCO said...

My posts on Watt's Up are being censored. I guess Anthony only wants to hear congrats and hosannas.

Anonymous said...

== Lee said: ==
="Actually, the change in temperatures for the lower 48 states, after this correction, is 0.15C.
The lower 48 states are about 2% of the planet's surface area.

0.15C x .02 = 0.003C.

Some massive error, huh?"=

It is a massive error for US data.

The US is the most oversampled land mass in the world and warming in the US has been reduced by 0.15C for just the last seven years. That's a very significant correction.

- Paul G

bigcitylib said...

TCO,

Personally, I think people like you should be shot and your bodies fed to the starving polar bears. As for being censored by Watts et al, welcome to the club.

Anonymous said...

The US is the most oversampled land mass in the world

...and all Americans are liars. What can you expect from a shit-bag country that had slavery for 300 years and apartheid for another 100?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Anonymous said...

Let's club some baby seals.

Larry Gilman said...

Anti-guy's remarks about the Woppelmann et al. paper seem, if I understand them, to have a twisty spin. I've read the paper in question, as well as Munk's 2002 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which enunciated the "20th century sea level enigma” to begin with. Woppelmann et al.'s paper does NOT call into question the reality of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. In fact, it takes as given the reality of anthropogenic thermosteric (warming-expansion) and ice-melting sea-level rise. Its resolution of the enigma of excess sea-level rise noted by Munk in 2002 is that the shortfall gets pinched from two directions: (1) since 2002, estimates of the anthropogenic greenhouse contribution to sea-level rise has been upped to 1.4 mm/yr from Munk’s figure of .7 mm/year, and (2) Woppelmann et al.’s GPS recalibration reduces the rise to be explained from 1.8 mm/yr to 1.3 mm/yr. The uncertainty ranges now overlap nicely. Enigma resolved (if Woppelmann et al.'s work is confirmed by others).

The problem was that anthropogenic sea-level rise didn't seem to account for observed sea-level rise: Woppelman et al. say that it does, now that we know that anthropogenic rise is _greater_ than we thought before and the total rise is _less_ than we thought before.

So, no duh, this paper isn't a disconfirmation of anthropogenic sea-level rise, some kind of “bad news” for people who acknowledge the mainstream scientific view of climate change, sea-level rise, and the like: it's the opposite. If it holds up, it brings theory into agreement with observation----and does so by correcting the observations, not by trashing the theory.

Peddling this paper as evidence that anthropogenic climate change is unreal is simply backwards-ass crazy.

Here’s it is in Woppelmann et al.’s own words:

----------------------------
Munk (2002) stressed that the sum of climate-related contributions to sea-level change was low (0.7 mm/yr) compared to the observations over the last 50–100 years (1.8 mm/yr) by referring to this factor 2 difference as the ‘enigma’ of sea-level change. Since then, the more recent results now indicate a 1 mm/yr contribution from the melting of global land ice reservoirs (Mitrovica et al., 2006), as well as a 0.4 mm/yr contribution from the thermal expansion of the world ocean (Antonov et al., 2005). We show here an exercise of combining GPS and tide gauge results that reduces the global average-level rise to 1.3 mm/yr. This appears to resolve the sea-level enigma.