tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80381589344925478182024-03-14T17:22:22.239+10:00By Brisbane WatersOr "Various comments, possibly interesting, by Tom Curtis"Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-5763996245998440732017-03-09T11:10:00.002+10:002017-03-09T11:11:22.841+10:00The Australian's War on Science<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/category/the_war_on_science/page/11/">July, 2006</a>, to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/category/the_war_on_science/">January, 2013</a>, Australian blogger, Tim Lambert posted 81 articles in a series he named, "The Australian's War on Science". The name commemorates the cherry picked, distorted and at time egregiously false reporting of science, especially climate science in The Australian newspaper. This biased, and often factually incorrect attack on climate science by the Australian was also noted by <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2011/09/bad-news">Robert Manne in his Quarterly Essay</a> on the Murdoch press. As a fairly long term reader of The Australian, I have notice the shocking standards of reporting on climate science in The Australian independently.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Being fair, the standards of reporting have improved slightly under the current environment editor, but not much. And the Australian still offers space on its opinion pages to those whose knowledge and understanding of climate science has all the virtue of Flat Eartherism. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If the quality of their reporting of Climate Science is any indication, The Australian fails abysmally to uphold journalistic integrity, sacrificing fair reporting in favour of pushing a political line against any effective policy to tackle climate change. Curiously, their tactics in this respect change. When the ALP was proposing an emissions trading scheme, they ran frequent commentaries arguing against any climate policy, or in favour of a carbon tax. When the ALP proposed a carbon tax, suddenly emissions trading schemes were the flavour of the month. The Australian's policy on climate policy appears to be to weakly support any policy not currently on offer, and to vehemently oppose any policy currently being proposed or enacted within Australia.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Today (March 3rd, 2017) The Australian ran an article which neatly illustrates the quality of their science reporting. Because it is unrelated to climate science, even died in the wool 'skeptics' should have not difficulty in recognizing that this article is not up to the standards that should be expected of a newspaper that lauds itself as Australia's finest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The article ("Isaac Newton's Law Sunk by Time Crystals") is about the recent synthesis of atomic structures that regularly return to the same state. That is, they repeat themselves in time just as regular crystals repeat themselves in space.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the article, the author states:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Atoms in a time crystal never settle down into what is known as thermal equilibrium, a state in which they will all have the same amount of heat. Rather, they pulse to a regular beat without the need for any external energy source. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This makes them atomic scale versions of perpetual motion machines - mythical gadgets that break two of the physical world's cardinal rules: Newtons first and second law of thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created from nothing, and that energetic things naturally drift into a state of 'entropy' or disorder."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The glaring error that will strike everyone with any knowledge of science is that Newton did not discover the Laws of Thermodynamics. Indeed, he is notorious for his dispute with Leibniz, who claimed that '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva">Vis Visa</a>' (an early formulation, equivalent to twice the kinetic energy of a system) was conserved. Newton himself claimed that it was not Leibniz' 'Vis Visa' that was conserved, but momentum.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Newton was dead 98 years when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (curiously the first law of thermodynamics discovered) was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics#History">discovered by Carnot in 1824</a>. The first law was established in the 36 years after that by Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">For those who do not know anything of the history of science, I cannot stress enough how completely incompetent this error is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Nor does it end there. <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-crystals-could-be-legitimate-form-perpetual-motion/">Time crystals do not violate</a> the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), or even the second, which states merely that entropy will not decrease - not that it will increase.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">How can a paper capable of this level of incompetence in reporting pretend to be capable of accurately reporting a science as subtle and complex as climate science? </span>Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-40044344896127983832016-03-31T12:49:00.001+10:002016-03-31T12:50:23.618+10:00Academics and Political BiasAn interesting paper is <a href="http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf">Cardif and Klein (2005)</a> which finds a ratio of 5:1 across tenure track staff in Californian universities in 2004. For comparison, <a href="http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf">the equivalent ratio across all Californian voters in the same year was 1.24%</a>, and <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx">1.06:1 across the US</a>.<br />
<br />
Some interesting points:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
1) As of 2015, the Democrat to Republican ration among registered voters in California had <a href="http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=526">lifted to 1.54%</a>. Across the US, it has increased to 1.23:1 That is, the drift has been towards the Democrats. This rules out the possibility that the high proportion of registered Democrats is an artifact of a more tenure track university staff maintaining their views while the general electorate drifted to the right, if the high D:R ratio was not sufficient to rule that out in any event.<br />
<br />
2) The D:R ratio varies substantially by faculty and by academic division, being highest (for the later) in the Humanities at 10:1 (see table 3), and lowest for Military/Sports at 0.7:1. The range of ratios can at least in part be explained by self selection to areas of interest based on political affiliation. Thus it is no surprise that Business has a low ratio at 1.3:1 while Social Sciences a high one at 6.8:1. However, except for the relatively small faculties included in Military/Sports, no academic division has a D:R ratio less than the general voting population of California, which puts paid to my theory that the disproportionate number of left leaning academics in social sciences was due to self selection.<br />
<br />
3) Hard Sciences/Mathematics has a D:R ratio of 6:1, while Engineering has a D:R of 2.5:1. I consider these cases significant given that the subjects have no innate political content. The high D:R ratio in both relative to the general population, and in Hard Sciences/Mathematics relative to the academic population puts paid to any theory that citation bias or other academic biases is the cause of the high D:R ratio. It also makes very questionable the idea that the high D:R ratio is due to selection bias in recruitment.<br />
<br />
That leaves several possible explanations. Of those the most favourable to conservative feelings is some variant of "those who can't do, teach". Put alternatively, the bias may arise from Democrat leaning people having a greater interest in teaching and/or research rather than exploiting their skills to maximize individual financial return (which is presumably more attractive to conservatives).<br />
<br />
Another possibility is that the increasing shift of Republicans to anti-science positions have alienated the scientists and scholars of academia. I think that is a real phenomenon, and it is difficult to wee how it could not be the case given Republican support for degrading education in Biology in favour of teaching religious views as science, and their campaign against, not just action against global warming, but climate scientists. Never-the-less, the survey was taken in 2004, before opposition to action on global warming became truly rabid, and before the success of Tea Party candidates in 2010 made being realistic about climate science the death knell of a Republican politician's career.<br />
<br />
Alternatively, left leaning people may be more attracted to the type of reasoning needed for academic success - specifically the ability for nuanced reasoning and suspended belief, a theory for which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation">there is some independent evidence</a>. This should not be mistaken for a theory that conservatives are less intelligent, there being many different ways of being intelligent. However, that is the third possibility; and as conservative academics have certainly been willing to entertain an equivalent hypothesis with regard to race of far less reliable evidence, it is not a theory that should just automatically be dismissed.<br />
<br />
(Note, this post is a heavily edited version of <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/free-speech-in-academia/#comment-75242">a comment from "... And Then There's Physics"</a>, although that in turn was the result of my intending to blog on Cardiff and Klein for some time now.)Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-53854490192812137812016-02-21T14:09:00.000+10:002016-02-21T14:10:27.534+10:00Below the fold I reproduce the text of a recent <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3292#116140">comment</a> by me on the issue of prediction vs retrodiction as validation of a scientific theory. It is a fundamental point, on which there is much confusion, so it bears preservation.
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
FrankShann @3, in logical terms, a set of propositions, x, predicts another set of propositions, y, if and only if y can be logically deduced from x. This is the fundamental relationship that underlies all explanation. Of course, sometimes we are not able to predict events from a set of propositions, but only the statistical distribution in which the event lies, or in other words, the probability of its occurence. Being human, we will often claim that something "explains" something else, when it only explains why the event is highly probable - but that does not alter the fact that fundamentally, explanation is logical deduction.<br />
The sole difference between prediction and retrodiction is that the former is explanation before the event, and the later is explanation after the event. Logically, this is irrelevant to how impressive the explanation is. One explanation is superior to the other based on simplicity (ie, the number of entities and relationships invoked), the preciseness of the conclusion of the successful deduction, and a priori probability of the premises. Nothing else, including the time it was made, enters into the fact. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">We are not less impressed by Newton's deduction of Galilean kinematics from his laws of motion, nor of Keppler's laws of planetary motion from his laws of motion plus the law of universal gravitation because they were after the event - and nor should we be</span>. <br />
The reason we are suspicious of retrodiction is the suspicion that they are <em>ad hoc</em>, ie, that they relly on premises added after the event to make the prediction fit, and at the cost of the simplicity of the premises used. However, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the inclussion of <em>ad hoc</em> premises can be tested for either before or after the event</span>. Therefore, <strong>provided we exclude <em>ad hoc</em> premises, prediction is no better in a scientific theory than retrodiction</strong>. Indeed, that is necessarilly the case in science. Otherwise we would need to preffer a theory that made correct predictions into the future but entirely failed to retrodict past observations over a theory that both predicted and retrodicted past and future observations with a very high degree of accuracy but occasional failures. <span style="text-decoration: underline;"> Indeed, as we cannot know in advance future success, science is built on the principle that <strong>successful retrodiction</strong> in the best guide to <strong>successful prediction</strong></span>.<br />
Given the above, your suspicions of CMIP5 models is based on an assumption that the change between them and earlier models is from the addition of <em>ad hoc</em> premises. That is in fact contrary to the case. The earliest climate models, due to lacking perfect resolution, needed ad hoc adjustments to close the energy budget. They needed <em>ad hoc</em> values for the rate of heat absorption by the ocean because they did not model the ocean. The very earliest models required <em>ad hoc</em> assumptions about the ratio of increase of different GHG because they did not have the capacity to model all GHG. As computer power has been improved, these <em>ad hoc</em> assumptions have been progressively removed. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">In terms of the elegance of prediction, CMIP5 models are vastly preferrable to the older models - but that is the crucial criteria</span>.<br />
If we prefer the predictions of Hansen (88) as a test of the validity of climate science - we are being unscientific. The model used in Hansen (88) did not include aerosols, did not include all GHGs, used a swamp ocean, did not include a stratosphere, and was not able to be run enough to generate an ensemble of predictions (a necessary feature for generating the probabilistic predictions of climate). In short, it was a massively ad hoc model, especially when compared to its modern incarnation. Therefore, if we are interested in science rather than rhetoric, the successful retrodiction by CMIP 5 models should impress us more than successful (or unsuccessful) predictions of Hansen (88).<br />
Nor is the development from more use of <em>ad hoc</em> premises to less either unusual or a problem in science. In fact it is typical. Newton started predicting the motion of planets using the <em>ad hoc</em> premise that planets were point masses. Later that was improved upon by the <em>ad hoc</em> premise that planets were empty shells with all their mass distributed evenly at their surface. Only as computational power and mathematical techniques have improved has it become possible to model planets as genuine 3-D objects with variable mass concentrations in Newton's theory. This was not a basis of rational criticism of Newton's theory, and nor is the primitive nature of the model used in Hansen (88) a valid criticism of climate science. But just as we would not prefer continuing to use point masses in prediction in gravitation, nor should we preffer the predictions of Hansen (88) over the retrodictions of CMIP5.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-69008773497682033172015-10-03T11:47:00.001+10:002016-07-22T10:41:07.850+10:00Notes on ObliquityIt is usual, when discussing Milankovitch cycles, to dismiss any effect of obliquity on global, annual mean insolation based on the fact that the Earth is a sphere. I did it myself in a comment on <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=7&p=10#113922">Skeptical Science</a>. As the Earth is an oblate spheroid, however, it is not strictly accurate. In particular, on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox">equinoxes</a>, the Earth presents its minimum aspect to the Sun, showing an eclipsed area of 1.2737 x 10<sup>14</sup> m<sup>2</sup> to the Sun. As the Earth moves to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solstice">solstice</a> (either winter or summer) it presents its maximum aspect, showing an eclipsed area of 1.2744 x 10<sup>14</sup> m<sup>2</sup>. That represents a difference of 0.05% in recieved sunlight, or approximately 0.12 W/m<sup>2</sup>. That seasonal variation is much less than <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Orbital_shape_and_Temperature">the 6.8% (16.2 W/m<sup>2</sup>) seasonal variation</a> due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
As obliquity changes, the maximum eclipsed area (ie the insolation at the solstice) also changes, although the minimum eclipsed area (ie, insolation at the equinoxes) does not. Just as the variation due to the Milankovitch cycle for eccentricity (~0.175%) is much smaller than the seasonal variation, so also is the variation due to the Milankovitch cycle in obliquity much smaller than the seasonal variation. Specifically, it represents only a 0.01% variation in the solstice insolation. As the equinoctial insolation does not change, the variation in global, annually averaged insolation due to changes in obliquity will be much less than 0.01%.<br />
<br />
For perspective, these factors are also less than the difference of treating the Earth as a perfect oblate spheroid, or allowing for the additional interception of sunlight due to continents, mountains and, of course, the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
(Edited from <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=7&p=10#113956">a comment on SkS</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Technical Notes (added July 22nd, 2016):<br />
<br />
"Any planar cross-section passing through the center of an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid"> forms an ellipse on its surface"</a><br />
(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(geometry)#Conic_sections">Source</a>)<br />
<br />
An oblate spheroid is an ellipsoid formed by rotating an ellipse around its minor axis. It follows that a planar cross-section passing through the poles will be an ellipse with a major and minor axis equal to that of the oblate spheroid. If we then tilt that cross-section, rotating it around the major axis, we will form a series of ellipses whose major axis is the same as that for the oblate spheroid and whose minor axis is given by the formula for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#Polar_form_relative_to_center">polar form of the generating ellipse (ie, the ellipse rotated to form the oblate spheroid) relative to the origin</a>:<br />
<br />
1) r(θ) = ab/((bcos(θ))^2+(asin(θ))^2)^0.5<br />
<br />
where r(θ) is the minor axis of the ellipse formed by rotating the cross section by (90-θ) degrees from the vertical, and a is the major axis of the generating ellipse, while b is the minor axis of the generating ellipse.<br />
Having determined the major and minor axes for the cross-section, its area is determined by the formula for<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#Area"> the area of an ellipse</a>:<br />
<br />
2) A = πab<br />
where A is the area, a is the major axis, and b is the minor axis of the cross-section.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-510511801681720762015-09-19T22:42:00.002+10:002015-09-19T22:42:33.191+10:00New BlogJust a small notice of my <a href="http://meanderingsinspaceandtime.blogspot.com.au/">new blog</a>, which will be of a more personal nature than By Brisbane Waters. I am also using it to discuss important issues not related to climate change.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-8398921795465178562015-05-29T15:00:00.001+10:002017-02-14T08:46:39.182+10:00Energy contributions to the Earth's surface temperatureHere are nearly all energy sources that contribute to the Earth's Global Means Surface Temperature (GMST):<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table border="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Heating Source</strong></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>W/m^2</strong></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong><sup>0</sup></strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>K</strong></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Solar</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
240</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
255.06</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Cosmic Background Radiation</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
3.13E-6</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
2.73</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Starlight</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
6.91E-6</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
3.32</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Cosmic Rays</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
3.2E-6</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
2.74</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Meteorites</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
2.27E-8</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
0.80 </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Combined off planet sources</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>240</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>255.06</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Geothermal</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
0.09</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
35.49</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Tidal</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
0.01</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
18.74</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Geothermal &Tidal</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>0.1</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>36.17</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Total Energy Sources</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>240.1</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>255.09</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
CO2</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
30.21</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
151.93</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Greenhouse Feedbacks</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
128.79</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
218.31</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Total Greenhouse</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>159</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>230.12</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Total</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>399.1</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>289.65</strong></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Observed Surface Energy</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
398</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td></td><td></td><td><blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
<tr><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
Observed Surface Temperature</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td><td><blockquote>
<blockquote>
287.15</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The most important factor not shown is albedo, which is included within the solar value for convenience. I have also ignored industrial waste heat, and the effects of emissivity (which increases the effective temperature) and uneven surface temperatures (which decrease it). Also not shown is seismic energy. The reason it is missing is that the vast majority of seismic energy is dissipate as heat deep within the Earth's surface, where it contributes to geothermal energy. Including it as a seperate item would have merely been double counting. Likewise, volcanic energy is included with geothermal energy, and so not shown as a separate item.<br />
<br />
<strong>The most important thing to notice</strong> is that the smaller items on the list are almost completely irrelevant. Based on caculations above, for example, we can determine that if the Earth floated far from any sun in galactic space, it would still maintain a surface temperature of around 36-37 <sup>o</sup>K. That represents the combined energy effects of geothermal heat (35.5 <sup>o</sup>K by itself), the cosmic background radiation, starlight, and cosmic rays. Assuming it orbited a dark star, providing the the further effects of tides and meteors, that would raise the temperature to 37-38 <sup>o</sup>K. But adding all these factors to the effect of sunlight would only raise the GMST by 0.03 <sup>o</sup>K, significantly less than the observational error of the Earths absolute GMST. Their contribution becomes even less when the greenhouse effect is also included.<br />
<br />
The reason for the low contribution of factors that by themselves would contribute more to temperature is the relationship between radiation and temperature captured by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Specifically, j* = εσT^4, where j* is the energy radiated, ε is the emissivity, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the surface temperature. Because of the conservation of energy, once equilibrium is reached the temperature matches that of a near black body radiating the same amount of energy it receives. This equation means, however, that the temperature increase for a given power input is proportional to the fourth root of the total power.<br />
<br />
<strong>The second most important thing to notice</strong> is that, despite their inclusion on the table, the greenhouse effect does not represent an additional source of energy. That is because for every joule returned to the Earth's surface by the greenhouse effect, an additional joule leaves the Earth's surface by means of radiation, increase convection or increased evaporation or transpiration. The greenhouse effect only makes the existing energy sources more efficient at heating the surface by recycling the energy. In that way, greenhouse gases act like blankets (an analogy which is exactly correct with reference to the thermodynamics, although completely inaccurate with regard to mechanism). The values shown for the greenhouse effect on the table, therefore, are best understood as the amount of additional energy from other sources that the Earth's surface would need to maintain the same GMST without a greenhouse effect.<br />
<br />
<strong>Finally</strong>, every now and again, somebody will pop up and insist that geothermal energy or some other equally obscure source of heating is the primary driver of GMST. Such theories fail absolutely once the relative energy inputs are calculated (something they never do). The theories are complete drivel on the same level as those of Flat Earth Society.<br />
<br />
<b>Update 11 Feb, 2016</b>: I can now add the energy contribution from the <u>solar wind</u>, which amounts to <u>0.00035 W/m^2</u>, and hence is the second largest of the off planet heating sources. It does not, however, rise above the error of the heating from direct sunlight. Source: <a href="https://scholar.uib.no/sites/default/files/birkeland/files/22_jgra50545.pdf">Tenfjord and Ostgaard (2013)</a><br />
<br />
Sources: <br />
<a href="http://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2002/Fig2-11.jpg">Solar and Total GHE - IPCC AR5 Fig 2-11</a><br />
<a href="ftp://dns.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/CO2%20role%20modern%20warming%202010.pdf">CO2 proportion of GHE - Schmidt et al (2010)</a><br />
Cosmic Background Radiation - Calculated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background">from temperature</a><br />
<a href="http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5452/1/BOWpr33b.pdf">Starlight and Cosmic Rays - Bowen et al (1933)</a><br />
<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=OJHzCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA452&lpg=PA452&dq=total+energy+from+falling+meteors+ergs&source=bl&ots=Q41_AwlkE9&sig=lm__JzonG3wDdooYH1jj5H78S8c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8JpnVfDnBuK3mAWP54OoCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=total%20energy%20from%20falling%20meteors%20ergs&f=false">Meteorites - Lovel, Geophysics II, p. 452</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/heatflow.html">Geothermal and Tidal - Skeptical Science</a><br />
<a href="http://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2002/Fig2-11.jpg">Observed Surface Energy - IPCC AR5 Fig 2-11</a><br />
<a href="http://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2009/Fig9-08.jpg">Observed absolute GMST - IPCC AR5 Fig 9-08</a>Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-8553174725876405012015-05-25T10:01:00.002+10:002015-05-25T10:02:34.216+10:00Grantham and the mediaI haven't written a post on the Queensland 2011 floods for a while. It is, however, back in the news due to issues relating to events at Grantham. I have very little to say about that in particular. Those issues turn on detailed matters of topography and hydrology on which neither I, nor the residents of Grantham have the necessary knowledge to have an informed opinion. The residents of Grantham do, of course, have the relevant expertise on what they saw; and what they saw must inform any hydrological assessment of the effects of the flood on Grantham. Knowing what you saw, and interpreting its significance, however, are not the same thing. Therefore the claims of the Grantham residents do not determine what happened in 2011, and should not by themselves determine the results of the current inquiry.<br />
<br />
The task of the inquiry is being made harder by bad reporting on the floods. I discuss below the fold one such example of bad reporting by Channel Nine, echoed by the Sydney Morning Herald. Once again I have copied <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2984#111693">a comment from SkS</a> for convenience, and in this case the first part of the comment is not directly relevant to the issue of bad reporting by media. I have retained it, however, as it does give useful background on the general situation in the Lockyer Valley at the time of the Grantham flood of Jan 10, 2011.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
ryland @4, on January 11th, 2011 <a href="http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/under-brisbane-waters.html">I described the Queensland floods</a> saying:<br />
<blockquote>
"Of course, and even larger perspective is needed. In March, 2010, Queensland experienced record breaking floods, with many towns experiencing record flood depths, and the greatest area flooded ever reported for Queensland. It was reported that the flood effected area in March was larger than Victoria (area: 240,000 square kilometers, or 92,000 square miles). In the week after Christmas, that record was broken, with a reported flooded extent greater in area than New South Wales (810,000 square kilometers or 313,000 square miles). That is an area about the size of the five largest contiguous US states either under water or cut off, or with crops rotting in the ground two weeks before harvest.<br />
In the last week of December, the floods were mostly confined to the interior behind Rockhampton and Bundaberg (also flooded) and to the Darling Downs and interior. There was minor flooding in Brisbane, and in the north of the state (where at least one woman lost her life). Since then the floods have moved south, flooding Gympie, Maryborough, and of course, Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley (and soon to be Ipswich and Brisbane). Dalby deserves a special mention, having experience five flood peaks in two weeks."</blockquote>
The post was in connection to the Toowoomba floods, described at the time as an "inland tsunami":<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D7HLvwPmles?feature=player_embedded" width="500"></iframe><br />
The Toowoomba floods were astonishing in that Toowoomba is literally at the crest of the Great Dividing Range west of Brisbane. Toowoomba's catchment area lies entirely inside the city limits.<br />
Shortly after the Toowoomba flood, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/if-we-dont-laugh-well-go-mental-murphys-creek-survivors-tell-of-the-horror-20110113-19p4i.html">Murphy's Creek was hit by a wall of water</a>, with the water level rising "... about 12 metres in 12 minutes" (<a href="http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/8788/QFCI-Interim-Report-Chapter-7-Lockyer-Valley-and-Toowoomba.pdf">Source</a>).<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nOgydxdFmOQ" width="500"></iframe><br />
(<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgydxdFmOQ">Source</a>)<br />
That was less surprising in that Murphy's Creek lies at the bottom of the range, hard up against the edge of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_Valley">Lockyer Valley</a>. Any flash flood coming down the range would have had no time to disperse before hitting Murhpy's Creek.<br />
Further downstream from Murhpy's Creek (and downstream of the confluence of Murhpy's and Lockyer Creek, on which Helidon sits), at Helidon, <a href="http://www.floodplainconference.com/papers2012/Greg%20Rogencamp%20Full%20Paper.pdf">the water level rose 8 meters in thirty minutes, with 4 meters of that rise being in ten minutes</a>. Helidon is downstream of three other streams in addition to Murhpy's Creek. The rapidity of the water rise at Helidon is astonishing given the relative distance from the valley walls (and hence time and distance for the flood peak to disperse).<br />
Downstream of Helidon (and of Flagstone Creek) lies Grantham. Further downstream again is Gatton where flood levels 20 meters above Davey's Bridge were recorded:<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jYvGpfV5Rus" width="500"></iframe><br />
(<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYvGpfV5Rus">Source</a>, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTjeNR6--xg">here</a> for video of after flood levels at the same location)<br />
I run through all this <span style="text-decoration: underline;">to illustrate just how deceptive is your comment @4</span> that "it is heartening to read in the SMH (May 24 2015) pieces noting the 2011 floods in Queensland were not due to climate change but to human error". It is deceptive because the 2011 Queensland floods were not restricted to a flood in Grantham. Nor is the SMH report about the "Queensland floods", but the rather about the floods in "Grantham, Queensland", <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/flight-logs-show-2011-grantham-queensland-floods-manmade-disaster-20150524-gh8no2">something made very clear in the article</a>. It is further deceptive because Grantham certainly would have flooded in any event on January 10th, as is made clear from the generalized flooding both upstream and downstream of Grantham. Indeed, Grantham had already flooded on Jan 9th, and would do so again in a further flood on Jan 11th when the Grantham water gauge ceased operating at 14 meters (<a href="http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/7094/QFCI_Exhibit_216_Technical_report_Lockyer_Valley_Floods_for_LGAQ.pdf">source</a>).<br />
What is at issue in the SMH is whether the collapse of an earth wall in a local quarry made the flood worse in Grantham than it would otherwise have been. It has no bearing at all on the causes of the flood. Further, the story is known to be inaccurate (and essentially a beat up by Channel Nine). The Channel Nine Chopper did not record the "wall of water" through Grantham. It did not even record the peak of flooding in Grantham, video of which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU-lc2pDcWE">did not emerge until March 18th</a>. Rather, it responded to reports of the flood which had already peaked by the time it was airbourne. The "new evidence" on the Sixty Minutes report was not relevant evidence at all.<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AU-lc2pDcWE" width="500"></iframe><br />
Even the reports account of what the prior inquiry said is inaccurate. <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/concluded%20that%20a%20wall%20of%20flood%20water%20hit%20Grantham%20between%203.15%20and%203.30pm">Channel Nine claims</a> the inquiry "...determined the flood hit the town at 3.15pm". The SMH reports that as:<br />
<blockquote>
"The commission concluded that a wall of flood water hit Grantham between 3.15 and 3.30pm, which fit the timeline of events that suggested the overflowing river upstream was the cause of the devastation."</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/11698/QFCI-Final-Report-March-2012.pdf">The inquiry actually found</a> that:<br />
<blockquote>
"While it accepts the submitters’ contention that the road from Gatton to Grantham was clear shortly after 3.00 pm (a conclusion consistent with the Commission’s finding in its interim report that the Grantham flooding occurred between 3.20 pm and 4.00 pm), it does not consider that there is any basis to reject the SES controller’s account as given in his statement referred to in the interim report. It is supported by statements from the group leader of the Gatton SES unit and members of the SES group which set out to perform the doorknocking task, as well as by the contemporary record in the form of the Gatton SES attendance log."</blockquote>
IMO it is very difficult to mistake 3:20 to 4:00 for 3:15 to 3:30; so Channel Nine and the SMH have directly misrepresented the Commission to beat up a story. So the "missing hour" is manufactured by dishonest reporting by Channel Nine (and possibly lazy reporting by the SMH).Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-90353158987850226762014-10-30T13:52:00.000+10:002014-10-30T14:01:08.224+10:00Observed enhanced greenhouse effectIn 2001, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html">Harries et al published an article</a> claiming to infer changes in greenhouse radiative forcing from changes in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). Here is the crucial data from that paper:<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IMG_vs_IRIS_difference.gif" height="215" width="500" /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
The graph shows the difference in OLR between April-June, 1970 and April-June 1997 over the eastern central tropical pacific (10 S to 10 N; 130-180 W). It shows that the OLR has increased slightly (top), but that the observed increase was matched by an predicted increase in the models (middle). The graphs are offset to allow easy comparison.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The question you should ask is why did the models predict an increased OLR even though the CO2 level had risen. The answer is that the region observed is right in the center of the ENSO pattern of variation. If you look at the pattern of ENSO variation, you will see that while there were slightly cool ENSO conditions in that zone in 1997, they were very much cooler in 1970:<br />
<img alt="" src="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif" height="162" width="500" /><br />
Remember, warmer temperatures increase OLR, and the 1997 temperatures were distinctly warmer, and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">warmer beyond the mere expectation from global warming due to the ENSO pattern</span>. That additional warmth above the AGW trend increased OLR beyond the additional reduction due to the slight increase in CO2 over that period. Indeed, it was <strong>only because of the additional warmth due to ENSO that the OLR increased</strong>. Had the increase in warmth been only that of the trend, the net OLR would have declined slightly.<br />
<br />
Harries et al did not leave it there. They used a model to correct for the temperature difference, thereby showing the impact of greenhouse gases apart from the changes in temperature:<br />
<img alt="" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif" height="218" width="500" /><br />
As expected, the change in GHG concentration reduces OLR.<br />
I know that pseudoskeptics attempt to dismiss this data because a model was used to generate it. It was not, however, climate model. It was a radiation model (specifically Modtran3). This is the sort of accuracy you can get with radiation models:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/desslerOLRmodelobsercomparison.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/desslerOLRmodelobsercomparison.png" height="304" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<br />
Because the adjustment was done with radiation code, denying the validity of the adjustment is tantamount to denying radiative physics altogether. It puts those who do it into flat earth society territory as regards to the level of their pseudo-science.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-68126045969022099162014-10-04T10:36:00.000+10:002014-10-04T10:37:04.936+10:00The straight line hockey stickThis is<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=141&&a=3#107053"> an extended post from Skeptical Science</a>. It discusses where I am at in dissecting McIntyre and McKitrick (2005). That is something I had been holding of on until I completed the analysis, but I raised some points of the analysis <a href="http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/things/#comment-33404">in discussion at And Then There's Physics</a>, so thought a fuller statement of the results to date was in order. Full discussion below fold:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
I have been playing around with the top 100 (cherry picked) Hockey Stick Index (HSI) that are all that are supplied by McIntyre and McKitrick in supplementary data for their 2005 paper in GRL. In doing so, I noticed certain defects in the Hockey Stick index they used. Of these, the most glaring is that for any straight line with a any slope other than zero (fat) or infinite (vertical), it indicates that the straight line is a hockey stick. Even with white noise added, so long as the Signal to Noise ratio does not exceed one, the line will probably (>50% chance) be given a HSI greater than 1, the conventional benchmark used by McIntyre to indicate something is a hockey stick. <br />
Here is an example of a straight line "hockey stick":<br />
<img alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gagCfBzN17I/VC8uz1bwUKI/AAAAAAAAA-Y/acXvaN-DoCU/s1600/Straight%2BHockey%2BStick.png" height="301" width="500" /><br />
In this case, the HSI is less than that for MBH 98 or 99, but the mean is of the 132 realizations is greater. That is, <strong>according to the M&M05 HSI, a straight line with white noise and a S/N ratio of 1.25 or more is more like a hockey stick than are MBH98 and 99</strong>.<br />
This fact does not depend in any way on the slope (provided it is neither flat nor vertical). Negative slopes will yield negative HSI's, but M&M05 (correctly) regard negative HSI's as equivalent to positive values in that the MBH98 reconstruction method flips the sign on proxies if that yields a better fit to the temperature data (which is not an error).<br />
From this it follows that the HSI developed by M&M cannot consistently distinguish between a straight line and a hockey stick shape. I suspect there are other shapes that it cannot distinguish either, but for now we need only consider the straight line. <strong>That means that, from the M&M05 HSI, we are unable to determine whether or not half of the 10,000 pseudo proxies are distinguishable from a straight line. Nor, using that index, are we able to distinguish MBH98 from a straight line.</strong> That means that as a statistical test of the tendency of short centered PCA to generate shapes similar to that of MBH98, the test is totally without power. <strong>It tells you absolutely nothing.</strong><br />
The total statistical power of the first part of M&M05, it turns out, comes from the visual comparison between MBH98 (fig 2) and the MBH first Principle Component of the North American Tree Ring Network (fig 3). That's it. And as everybody should no, eyeball Mark 1 has very little statistical power as well.<br />
Not being content with finding a flaw with M&M05 statistical test, I looked to see if they could have done better. In the end I developed five variant Hockey Stick Indexes (vHSI) that were superior as a statistical test of a hockey stick shape (although not necessarily under all circumstances). These were,<br />
<ol>
<li>The ratio of the standard deviation of the calibration period relative to the calibration period (1902-1980) relative to the standard deviation of the non-calibration period. This tests for flatness in the "handle" vs noisiness or a high relative slope in the "blade". Like the M&M HSI, it will only work well when the "handle" is flat, but will work better in that circumstance. </li>
<li>The angle formed by the slope in the calibration period relative to the angle of the slope of the non-calibration period if the two are displaced to intersect at the first year of the calibration period. This tests merely for the angle between "blade" and "shaft" and will work well regardless of orientation . It will not tell you how flat the "handle" is, however, and so can be confused by "hockey sticks" with very crooked "handles".</li>
<li>The closeness of the largest inflection point in the period 1850-1900 to the inflection start of the calibration period. The inflection point is defined as the start year of the largest 50 year trend starting in that period. The index is defined as the difference between the inflection point and 1850 divided by the square root of the difference beween the start of the calibration period and 1850. (not shown)</li>
<li>The angle formed by the slope to 1850 and the fifty year trend from the inflection point. This again works best with a flat "handle".</li>
<li>The inflection point angle weighted by the inflection point index.</li>
</ol>
Here are the results, comparing MBH 98 and 99 to the cherry picked top 100 HSI pseudo proxies from M&M05:<br />
<img alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TU2tCa42Eko/VC6WLJLvt0I/AAAAAAAAA98/MXdt1PMJWwU/s1600/HSIv_M%26MvsMBH.png" height="330" width="500" /><br />
The twelve point mean is the average of the 12 pseudo proxies used by McInyre (and Wegman) in various illustrations M&M's results. MBH98 PC1 is the first principle component of the reconstruction of 1450-1400 temperatures from MBH98.<br />
As can be seen, MBH98 and 99 are statistically distinguishable from even the cherry picked top 1% of pseudo proxies, with differences in index values never less than 2 standard deviations above the mean, and for one index nearly 10 standard deviations above the mean. MBH98 PC1 does not perform as well, but still can be statistically distinguished from the cherry picked top 1% in 3 out of the five tests. (The Inflection point vHSI shows MBH98 PC1 to be just over two standard deviations above the mean.)<br />
This is still a work in progress. I think I need to improve my vHSIs by making comparisons with the instrumental record rather than the calibration period, and a combination of angle based and standard deviation based vHSI would probably be superior. Further, I should make comparisons with the first principle component of the North American Tree Ring data base.<br />
Never the less, even at this stage the results show that <strong>you can devise variant Hockey Stick Indexes that are better able to determine a hockey stick shape</strong>, and that <strong>if you use those vHSIs MBH98 and 99 stand out as easily statistically distinguishable from PC1s generated from red noise using short centered PCA</strong>. Further, those vHSIs are demonstrably superior to that of M&M05 in that at least none of them will mistake a straight line for a hockey stick (except the pure inversion method, which is why it was not shown ;)) <strong>So not only did M&M05 use a test with no statistical power, without validating the test; but alternative tests exist which would have refuted their thesis.</strong><br />
The take home is that the first part of M&M05 is simply scientific garbage. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.<br />
When I get around to it, I am going to see if I can develop even better vHSIs, but probably will wait at least till I have a copy of the NOAMER PC1, and ideally until I (or a collaborator) can generate a full set of pseudo proxies without the cherry picks for statistical comparisons. (Help with either would be appreciated.)Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-60714146993465360492014-09-12T08:55:00.000+10:002014-09-12T08:55:37.366+10:00Some knowledge is not certain (or why the spurious rejection of reasonable inductive inferences is itself a fallacy of reasoning)One of the common themes of the creation wars and the climate war is the attempt by the anti-science side of each debate (ie, creationists and AGW deniers) to make their position appear more reasonable than it is by arguing that it is accepted by a large number of scientists. Thus we have lists of scientists who do not accept evolution such as <a href="http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/scientists-evolution.php">that compiled by the Discovery Institute</a>, and equivalent lists of scientists who do not accept Anthropogenic Global Warming such as the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm">OISM petition</a> from the forces of anti-science.<br />
<br />
To counter this spurious argument, defenders of science have emphasized how small a proportion of scientists accept these pseudo-scientific positions. The NCSE does this with some humour, through their <a href="http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve">Project Steve</a>. Defenders of the theory of AGW are a bit more dour, and have produced a series of surveys and other studies showing that rejection of AGW is <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm">confined to about 3% of climate scientists</a>.<br />
<br />
The curious thing is that these studies are rejected in turn by AGW deniers as an appeal to authority, ie, and invalid argument. Their intention is nothing of the sort. Rather, they are a rebuttal of the spurious appeal to authority represented by such phenomenon as the OISM petition. Ignoring that important subtlety, however, the fact remains that an appeal to relevant authority is in fact a valid way of justifying beliefs. I recently explained why in some detail in <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2659#106551">a comment at Skeptical Science</a>, which is reproduced with minor editing below the fold.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<br />
dhf @40:<br />
<blockquote>
"Very many are trained through education and profession to recognize and disregard arguments containing logical fallacies."</blockquote>
Being in fact trained in formal logic, and having some practical experience in rhetoric, I can recognize your argument as an "<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion">argument from assertion</a>". <br />
<br />
Of course, that does not make it a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is formally described as an "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity">invalid argument</a>", ie, and argument for which the premises can be true, and the conclusion false. Clearly, the argument by assertion, as the formal form of p⇒p (read as p, therefore p, where p is any proposition). That is so far from being a logical fallacy, it is in fact a tautology. It also in no way gives us more reason to believe that "p" than we had initially, and is thus a rhetorical fallacy (or from some points of view, a strong rhetorical move if you can disguise what you are doing.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, t<strong>hat which you argue for by assertion is false</strong>.<br />
I know that because both <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning">induction</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning">abduction</a> are also logical fallacies. (I leave aside mathematical induction, which may be formally valid, but cannot be shown to be formally valid <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction#Heuristic_justification">without assuming that it is</a>.) <br />
<br />
In the classic example of induction is the argument that because all (non-albino) crows that we have seen are black, therefore all (non-albino) crows are black. Clearly the proposition that all members of a set, S, have a given property is not logically entailed from the fact that all members of a proper subset of S, S', have that property. But the argument from induction asserts that inference to be valid. <br />
Ergo the argument from induction is a logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
To take a practical example, it is a universal experience of humans that not all points of the Earth's surface are directly visible from one location no matter how high. It does not follow logically from that that tomorrow no human will directly see the entirety of the Earth's surface from one location. Assuming that they will is a logical fallacy, known as the argument from induction.<br />
<br />
An even more practical example is the belief that that aspirin has a high probability of reducing the pain from a headache (supported by a vast body of experience) will continue through tomorrow. It is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">logically</span> consistent with all past experience that from tomorrow aspirin will cause humans to die after 48 hours of excruciating agony. Any time you take aspirin in the confident belief that it will reduce your headache and cause no appreciable harm, you are indulging in the logical fallacy known as induction.<br />
<br />
Abduction (the inference to the best explanation), is even more fun in that it has the apparent form of a named fallacy, ie, that of affirming the antecedent. It is none-the-less the basis of all science. Admittedly, some scientists try for a Popperian science, but as even Popper admitted, falsification is a matter of convention - and hence even Popperian science is inductive. Indeed, as Imre Lakatos has pointed out, the inductive leap based on the fact that a theory has not been falsified is always false. <a href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/lakatos_prediction.html">As he says</a>,<br />
<blockquote>
"In the distorting mirror of naive falsificationism, new theories which replace old refuted ones, are themselves born unrefuted. Therefore they do not believe that there is a relevant difference between anomalies and crucial counterevidence. For them, anomaly is a dishonest euphemism for counterevidence. But in actual history new theories are born refuted: they inherit many anomalies of the old theory. Moreover, frequently it is only the new theory which dramatically predicts that fact which will function as crucial counterevidence against its predecessor, while the "old" anomalies may well stay on as "new" anomalies"</blockquote>
<br />
It is clear from that last example that the very professions you probably had in mind (medical doctors, engineers) are not trained to ignore arguments based on logical fallacies. Rather, they base their careers on at least one logical fallacy, and probably many. Indeed, certainly many if they are any good.<br />
<br />
Appeal against an argument because it is a "logical fallacy" really amounts to the old classical canard of assuming all knowledge is certain - that only that which can be known deductively can in fact be known. In fact, <strong>in real life most of what we know is known inductively - from arguments that are not formally valid, but are reliable</strong>. That is necessarily the case, or our knowledge would be restricted to logical tautologies, and mathematics. Indeed, at a most fundamental level, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">did we not accept the argumentum ad populum in our youths, we would speak no language</span>. It is only because all around us (or nearly all) call crows "crows" and swans "swans" that we know the meaning of those words.<br />
<br />
The reason some (at least) of the "logical fallacies" have such a hold on our minds is that they are in fact reliable ways to obtain knowledge, or at least were so under the conditions in which we evolved. Under those conditions the knowledge base of all the people was based on their every day experience of the world over generations, and within its limits was reliable (although it could sometimes be false). We did not need to check that black mambas were poisonous because we were told so by "all the people", and trusting them was a far more reliable way to obtain that knowledge (even if less certain than direct experimentation).<br />
<br />
Not only were they reliable, they were essential. No person growing up has time or ability to check every fact they accept for themselves. That was true in the past and is even more so in modern societies with a substantial scientific and technical base.<br />
<br />
What has changed with the development of science is not that we need no longer rely on "arguments from authority" or "arguments from all the people", but that we have realized the reliability of the people on whom we rely depends essentially on the type of experience they have. We have realized with respect to science that reading ancient Greek classics is not a reliable source of knowledge, but that detailed experimentation and scientific reasoning is. Therefore we no longer include classics scholars among the people we rely on to understand physics. Instead we rely on scientists.<br />
<br />
Doing so, of course, remains a 'logical fallacy'. It is also a reliable guide to knowledge. The key is we must ensure that scientists do not themselves rely on the argumentum ad populum in the area of their specialization. Rather, they should rely on those other 'logical fallacies', induction and abduction. So, unless you are yourself a climate scientists, you are a fool to not rely on the 97% in determining your knowledge on science. You are giving up the most reliable source of knowledge to which you have access. You are even more a fool if you do so based on myths about "logical fallacies" which have no bearing on the real world.<br />
<br />
Climate scientists themselves, on the other hand, should not be persuaded one iota in any direction from the fact that they are in the 97%, or the 2% or the 1%. And from my experience of their works, they are not.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-38588692915601854512014-08-28T04:20:00.000+10:002014-08-28T04:20:22.753+10:00Schnidejoch and global warmingRecent retreats in ice in the Alps due to global warming have resulted in a number of interesting archological finds, of which the most famous is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi">the "ice man", Otzi</a>. Less famous are the finds in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnidejoch">Schnidjoch Pass</a>. These have been purported by AGW deniers to prove that the Alps were warmer in the past when the artifacts found in Schnidejoch were dropped by their former owners. In fact, the logic is exactly the reverse - these artifacts prove Schnidejoch to have been colder throughout the last 6000 years than it has been in the early twenty-first century. Here is a detailed explanation of why, from <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2634#106224">a recent comment at SkS</a>. <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2634#106235">A follow on comment</a>, not posted here, is also of interest.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
sotoloth7 @10, you are refering to the finding of ancient artifacts in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnidejoch">schnidejoch pass</a> between Italy and Switzerland. The story is that in recent times the pass has been so icebound that it was even forgotten that it was a potential route across the alps. The finding of neolithic, bronze age and iron age artifacts, however, prove that the pass was used in ancient times, which is supposed to prove the region was warmer in those times.<br />
Cutting through the denier dross, the key facts are:<br />
1) Artifacts have been found in the pass, <strong>mostly of organic material</strong> (bark, wood, plant fibres, leather);<br />
2) The artifacts are found when the current ice which holds them melts, thus revealing them;<br />
3) Once uncovered by the ice, organic artifacts decompose rapidly. <a href="http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic65-5-189.pdf">Hafner (2011)</a> states:<br />
<blockquote>
"Organic finds have only a limited chance of being preserved once they are no longer encased in ice and become exposed to the elements. Once objects are free of the ice, they remain covered by snow for almost nine months of the year; for the remaining months, however, they are exposed to frequent rain and snowfall alternating with intense sunlight and strong winds. Artifacts lying on the surface are blown away by the wind or exposed to UV radiation, which makes them brittle. Compared to the lowlands, there are probably fewer active decomposers at 2700 m asl and at such low temperatures. Nevertheless, <strong>unprotected fragile artifacts such as leather or textiles would likely not have survived more than a few years</strong>. Timber fragments lying exposed on the surface of the scree would probably have survived considerably longer, perhaps for 50 to 100 years."<br />
(My emphasis)</blockquote>
4) Some organic artifacts found in the pass are very ancient. Hafner itemizes the most ancient artifacts:<br />
<blockquote>
"The oldest objects from the Schnidejoch include a fragment of a bowl made of elm wood (Fig. 6) and several fragments of arrows. Five pieces of leather and wood dating from around 800 to 1000 years later can be attributed to the second Neolithic time slot from 3700 to 2900 BC.<br />The third Neolithic time slot, between 2900 and 2200 BC, yielded particularly numerous and spectacular finds. An almost complete bow kit was found over the course of a few years in many pieces that were likely from one kit. The bow kit consisted of a complete bow, 1.6 m long, made of yew wood (Fig. 7); a bow string made of an unidentified material, probably of animal origin; a bow case made of birch bark (Fig. 8); numerous complete arrow shafts, as well as many fragmented ones (Fig. 9); and two arrowheads. This Neolithic equipment was supplemented by a leather legging (Fig. 10). This item of clothing exhibited obvious seams stitched with plant fibers and repairs in the form of patches. This large piece of leather measuring 89 cm × 60 cm—probably one of the largest preserved prehistoric leather fragments ever found—was analyzed using various methods."</blockquote>
<img alt="" src="http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20080908/001109b42f730a2ed88b52.jpg" height="375" width="500" /><br />
5) The artifacts were found within a short distance of the summit of the pass. As seen in the picture below, the summit of the pass (rather than the mountain) is marked by a small rige of stone, with the artifacts being found around the small ice patches immediately below that ridge, mostly on the northern side. Because they were found so close to the summit, they are unlikely to have been moved by ice while burried, and were almost certainly deposited within meters of the locations in which they were found.<br />
<img alt="" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44956000/jpg/_44956235_glacier.jpg" height="376" width="500" /><br />
<br />
Bringing together these six points, it becomes evident that the pass is currently largely ice free in summer. Further, it has not been largely ice free for more than about 100 years since 4300 BC (6300 years ago). If it had been, the earliest (wooden) finds would have decomposed and not been found. Further, it has not been largely ice free for more than a few years since 2900 BC (4900 years ago). If it had been, the five pieces of leather from the second period would also have decomposed. Therefore, <strong>taken together the finds are strong evidence that prior to the first discovery of artifacts in 2003, the summit of the pass had been largely ice free for at most a decade in the preceding 5000 years</strong>. Put in other words, since that first discovery in 2004, near ice free summers at the summit of schnidejoch pass have equalled or exceeded the number of such near ice free summers in the preceding 5000 years.<br />
Deniers take this stunning fact and turn it into (apparent) evidence that the pass was warmer in the past.<br />
Obviously they are playing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game">a pea and thimble trick</a>. In this case the trick is the assumption that the pass must be ice free to be traversed. The assumption is not true, with passes traversible with shallow snow - even knee deep snow - without undue difficulty. In contrast, the pass does need to be almost completely ice free to reveal artifacts dropped into the snow in previous millenia. In fact, because the pass can be crossed even with snow present, and because even short periods of ice free summers would have caused the decomposition of the remains, the presence of organic remains is strong evidence the pass has not been nearly ice free in the 5000 (and probably 6000) years preceding 2004. The object of the pea and thimble trick is to make evidence of the unusual warmth of the early 21st century look like evidence that it was not unusually warm at all.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-78201890076321848962014-08-13T11:01:00.000+10:002014-08-13T11:01:35.299+10:00<div class="tr_bq">
The following is <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=55&&n=2626#105926">a comment made at SkS</a> on the topic of how much new agricultural land will be made available in northern latitudes by global warming. It relies heavily on just one, twenty year old reference in an area in which I lack significant knowledge. It is posted primarily to provide a reference to two key sources of relevant data. I think my discussion is reasonable, but it should only used to provoke thinking on the topic rather than to take home conclusions. </div>
<div class="tr_bq">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<div class="tr_bq">
The comment follows in the sequence:</div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=2626#105876">Bob Loblaw</a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=2626#105886">Tom Curtis</a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=2626#105887">Tom Curtis</a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=2626#105888">Bob Loblaw</a></div>
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=2626#105892">Tom Curtis</a><br />
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=55&&n=2626#105906">Bob Loblaw</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
"Bob Loblaw @47, your first link is indeed the map I was indicating. I have since found <a href="http://www.agr.gc.ca/atlas/agpv?webmap=5b54c00685b74cab960a54bc444fc927">a more suitable map</a> (the third map from <a href="http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/webmaps.html">this site</a> to which you have previously linked), as it shows the actual soil qualities. Of particular interest in your dispute with Donny is the large swathes of soil in the east of Canada which have "No Capability for arable culture or permanent pasture" (pink) despite being at the same latitude as the Canadian prairies, and hence are not restricted by climate factors. </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
Equally interesting are the areas of arable land (some of the highest quality) along the Peace river (north west Alberta) and the single mapped section in north east British Columbia showing a complex interlacing of arable soils (brown) adjacent to a large section of peats (black) which are unsuitable for agriculture. The high latitude of these sections relative to the northern limit of the Canadian prairies shows that northern limit to have been set by soil type rather than climate.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
Those examples, however, also show where, and how we can expect to find suitable soils in Northern Canada with increased global warming. Both represent deposits of river silt, a process that produces suitable soil for agriculture almost regardless of climate (ie, soil in which agriculture is only restricted by climate). There presence indicates that such suitable soils are also likely to be found in the river valleys of the MacKenzie and other smaller northern rivers descending from the Rockies. Comparison with <a href="http://www.agr.gc.ca/atlas/agpv?webmap=c225cc78d5b142d58eacefae91cc535b">the soil map of a Canada</a> (first map, previously linked site) does show the relevant reaches of the McKenzie have <a href="http://www.soilsofcanada.ca/orders/luvisolic/">luvisolic soils</a>, and thus they are likely to provide small regions of class three or four soils (as with BC reaches of the Peace, which has a similar soil classification). That is, the land will be potentially arable, but will require extensive conditioning to control soil pH (if I understand the description correctly).</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
As an aside, a more detailed soil map of Canada, and indeed of Siberia as well, can be found in the "Soil Atlas of the Northern Polar Region" (<a href="http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/Circumpolar/Documents/Circumpolar_atlas.pdf">280 MB PDF</a>; <a href="http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/maps/Circumpolar/download.cfm?myID=17">website</a>). Unfortunately the basis of classification in that atlas does not lead directly to an ability to classify as to whether or not the soil is arable, at least for inexpert commentors like me.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
With regard to <a href="http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/viewFile/1280/1305">Mills (1994)</a>, closer reading shows that he finds 16 million Hectares of arable land that would be opened up from a doubling of CO2, but that the majority (15.9 million Hectares) of that will be in Alaska, while only 0.2 million hectares will be within the study area within Canada itself (page 122). The study area within Canada is quite restricted (fig 1), so that some more might be expected in Canada, but arguably not a lot as the most suitable sites on geographical grounds are also the most likely to have been surveyed. This difference between Alaska and Canada is consistent with the hypothesis above that river valleys will produce arable land even in climates currently to cold to sustain cropping, along with the size of the Yukon river valley.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
I am not sure if this additional information reconciles you to the Mills (1994) results, but regardless I will accept the result of a peer reviewed study over the anecdotal evidence of a non-expert 100% of the time. If you think Mills is wrong, find a more recent peer reviewed study showing that he is wrong."</blockquote>
<br />Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-71566147138359469112014-08-06T14:03:00.002+10:002014-08-06T14:03:13.955+10:00Thoughts on McIntyre and McKitrick 05 The following is <a href="http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/the-road-to-hell/#comment-28040">a comment</a> published at And Then There's Physics. I am posting it here as a ready access source for me for the relevant links and commentary on M&M05:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
I have been looking further at our hosts rampant campaign of unwarranted accusations of a "lack of integrity" suggested, by apophasis, to exist by Mosher and was coming up empty. Fortunately Brandon Shollenberger came to the rescue at Climate Etc with <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/04/is-the-road-to-scientific-hell-paved-with-good-moral-intentions/#comment-614646">this comment</a>:
<br />
<blockquote>
"I disagree andrew adams. Anders falsely accused Steve McIntyre of cherry-picking runs of a simulation to exaggerate his results when he hadn’t even looked at the paper in question. That’s iffy on its own, but when I confronted him on the issue, he adamantly refused to look at the paper. When I pressed this issue, Anders banned me because he didn’t like what I said on a different site.
I think banning a person despite them having never behaved poorly at your site, because they say you are leveling baseless accusations against a person based upon a paper you refuse to even look at, calls a blogger’s moral compass, ethics and integrity into question."</blockquote>
The accusation has been endorsed <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/04/is-the-road-to-scientific-hell-paved-with-good-moral-intentions/#comment-614651">by Carrick</a> <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/04/is-the-road-to-scientific-hell-paved-with-good-moral-intentions/#comment-614952">and Mosher</a>. Carrick in fact admits that the two accusations made by Shollenberger <b>are the only examples he knows of</b> that have <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/04/is-the-road-to-scientific-hell-paved-with-good-moral-intentions/#comment-614553">lead him to claim that Anders</a> has never "...demonstrated that [he] have a moral compass", and that he is an example of "Scientific sociopathic behavior at its finest".
The accusation, it turns out, is related to <a href="http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/basic-truths/#comment-15">this comment by Anders</a> at Shollenberger's blogsite, where he writes:
<br />
<blockquote>
As far as your criticism of MBH98 is concerned, I don’t dispute the issues. It may also be true the using the MBH98 data to produce the red noise is largely irrelevant. It does, however, seem odd – as a physicist – to see people claim to produce independent random red noise, but to do so using the data they’re trying to compare to. Maybe that illustrates my ignorance with respect to what actually happens here, but it still seems a little odd. What seems indisputable, though, is that the 10 hockey sticks presented in MM05 (one of the papers, you probably know which one) were not selected randomly from their sample of 10000. They were chosen to be most hockey-stick like. People, however, clearly interpret the results of MM05 as implying that random red noise typically produces hockey sticks, rather than random red noise sometimes (probably quite rarely) produces hockey sticks.</blockquote>
The actual facts of the case are that after running his program to generate 10,000 pseudo reconstructions from red noise, <a href="http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf">McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005</a> selected the 100 pseudo reconstructions with the highest Hockey Stick Index (HSI, =(1902-80 mean minus 1400-1980 mean)/1400-1980 standard deviation). That group of 100 pseudo reconstructions were mentioned in the paper, and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/suppinfo">included in the supplementary information</a>. All choices of pseudo reconstructions to graph by M&M05 were chosen from that cherry picked selection. That includes the single graph shown together with the MBH98 reconstruction as Fig 1 in M&M05, and the panel of twelve pseudo reconstructions generated by the code included in supplementary material of M&M05, and published in the Wegman Report. At no point in the paper or in supplementary material do M&M05 draw attention to the fact that the selection is a biased selection.
Now, it is clear that Anders made a couple of mistakes. To start with, although the pseudo reconstruction that was published in M&M05 "... were not randomly selected from their sample of 10000", being in fact selected from their sample of the 1% with the highest HSI; and though the 10 pseudo proxies graphed by the code provided with the supplementary information of M&M05 "... were not randomly selected from their sample of 10000", the later 10 were not shown in the paper. Further, the eleven pseudo reconstructions graphed either in figure 1 or by the code provided with the paper were not the eleven (or 10) with the highest HSI, they were merely selected from the 1% of pseudo reconstructions with the highest HSI.
It is clear, however, that while these are mistakes, they are trivial mistakes. They do not effect the substance of the issue. A cherry pick of the top 1% of pseudo reconstructions in terms of the HSI is still a cherry pick, and not informing readers either in the paper or notes on the supplementary information that the graphs generated by the program in the SI are a biased selection is a serious breach of normal standards of publication. <b>This is particularly the case as the only tests conducted by M&M05 to show the ability of red noise to generate MBH98 like pseudo reconstructions is by visual comparisons with the cherry picked selection.</b>
That last may seem an odd claim, in that surely a comparison was made using the HSI itself, but in fact M&M05 never publish the HSI of either the MBH98 reconstruction (1.13), the MBH98 580 year PC (0.94), or the MBH 99 reconstruction (1.13). These are 22.7 (MBH98 and 99) and 27.9 (MBH98 PC1) standard deviations <b>less than</b> the mean HSI of the selected 1% of pseudo reconstructions. The are also in the bottom one percentile (MBH98 PC1) or, probably, 2.5%ile (MBH98 & 99) of results for all 10,000 pseudo reconstructions. I say "probably" for the later because M&M05 do not give full statistics. The do state that less than 1% have a HSI less than 1, and that only 27% have a HSI less than 1.5. From the histogram (figure 2), it is possible to determine that about a fifth of that 25% have a HSI less than 1.25.
You can see, therefore, why McIntyre and McKitrick were loath to do more than visual comparisons. Had they done a statistical comparison using their chosen measure of similarity (the HSI), the paper would have (apparently) reported that the MBH98 method applied to red noise generates hockey stick like shapes but <b>that statistical tests show at the 90% (certainly) or 95% (probably) confidence levels, the MBH 98 was not a random outcome from red noise</b>.
This is even clearer using more conventional tests. The peak r-squared comparing the 100 selected hockey sticks to the instrumental record over the period 1902-1980 was 0.35, compared to 0.76 for MBH98. That is seven standard deviations from the mean of the r-squared statistics for the selected pseudo reconstructions. Again, actual numerical statistical tests, as opposed to eyeballing cherry picked graphs, show the MBH98 reconstruction not to have been a chance outcome from red noise. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98">This is something Michael Mann has also demonstrated by other means</a>.
Further, certainly McKitrick (<a href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf">McKitrick 05</a>) and probably McIntyre were using the selected set of pseudo reconstructions in public commentary in 2005.
Going back to Ander's "perfidy", it is clear that in this episode his claims were essentially correct. Further, he did not make an accusation of cherry picking as such. He did claimed a selection bias in the graph, but made no claim as to how that would effect the result or as to the motives of McIntyre and McKitrick in imposing the selection bias. <b>His most strenuous criticism is to say some of M&M05 methods "seem odd", and then to qualify that by indicating that that may merely illustrate his lack of specialist knowledge on the topic</b>. A damnation of M&M05 on the basis of lack of research integrity his comment is not.
The second basis of Anders purported "lack of moral compass" is that he banned Shollenberger from this site because Shollenberger repeatedly claimed that he (Anders) had lied (Shollenberger uses the word "fabricating" which definitely implies intent, and in context implies the claims are false). After a discussion with Shollenberger on his site, I heartily endorse Anders sentiment of never wanting to discuss anything with Shollenberger again. It is not a moral or a personality flaw to dislike discussing things with people who do not discuss in good faith, show a lack of personal integrity, and behave like complete pricks. Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-5847560302167637332014-02-07T17:21:00.002+10:002014-02-07T17:21:56.366+10:00Winter in the United States<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/u-s-decjan-temperatures-3rd-coldest-in-30-years/">Roy Spencer reports</a> on the recent temperatures in the CONtiguous United States (CONUS). What is missing from his report is the relevant context. First, the CONUS represents just 1.6% of the Earth's surface. So small a part tells us little about global temperature change. It does not tell us, for example whether the very warm temperatures in parts of <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/news/while-most-us-froze-parts-alaska-set-record-highs-20131211">Canada and Alaska</a> (1.1%), or record breaking warm temperatures <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/">in Australia</a> (0.6%) have balanced those in the CONUS or not. It certainly does not tell us what is happening to the <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2618">other 96.7% of the Earth's surface</a>.<br />
<br />
Second, Spencer is not reporting official United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) figures, but his own figures which use a larger Urban Heat Island (UHI) adjustment than do the official figures. While we cannot be certain as to the correct adjustment for UHI and other factors, recently the accuracy of the USHCN adjustments have been <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/">corroborated from an independent source</a>. <br />
<br />
Third, he is only reporting on two winter months. Individual months are always more variable than annual figures, which have some of the variations cancelled out be averaging. Consequently it is not surprising that a two month period should be unusually cold, even with the background of a warming trend. It makes such comparisons mere curiosities, having no bearing on the long term change in temperatures. Spencer <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/u-s-temperatures-1973-2013-a-alternative-view/">shows a graph</a> of his adjusted Integrated Surface Hourly (ISH) figures compared to the official USHCN figures:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ISH-PDAT-vs-USHCN-1973-2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ISH-PDAT-vs-USHCN-1973-2013.png" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
It can be seen clearly that Spencer's adjustment significantly cools later years relative to earlier years. Indeed, by 2013, it cools it by 0.35 C. As it turns out, that does not make a large difference in the ranking of 2013, which is the 13th coldest of 41 years in his adjusted figures, whereas it is tied for 15th and 16th coldest in the official USHCN data over that 41 years. Of course, the USHCN has many more years on record than just 41, and most of them much colder. Further, the early years of the 41 Spencer shows are obviously colder than the later years. Indeed, 8 of the first 15 years shown are colder than 2013.<br />
<br />
That brings to mind <a href="http://xkcd.com/1321/">a recent comic by xkcd</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png" height="640" width="632" /></a></div>
<br />
Which brings us to the December/January figures ;)<br />
<br />
In those figures, Spencer shows that Dec/Jan of 2013/2014 have indeed been cold relative to the last 41 years, being the 6th coldest out of 41 years data. And it was indeed cold, at a chilly -0.55 C average for the CONUS. Of course, relatively warm relative to the -2.1 C in 78/79. And the years before that were colder still. What was <a href="http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2014/01/texas-cold-in-perspective/">commonplace</a> has simply <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2606">become note-worthy due to the warming climate</a>. XKCD has it right.<br />
<br />
(Note: This post is an edited and expanded version of an original <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2391#101712">comment at Skeptical Science</a>.)Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-53295588456596528412014-01-04T06:01:00.001+10:002014-01-04T06:01:19.546+10:00Shrinking the carbon footprintLindsay of <a href="http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/">Shrink</a> explains the task ahead of us in terms of lego:
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/urewQRnA9iM?feature=player_embedded" width="640"></iframe>
(h/t to my daughter)Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-72694695043983887852013-11-15T17:17:00.002+10:002013-11-28T23:45:56.327+10:00Salby's Ratio in HamburgJust over a year ago, <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/salbyratio.html">I drew attention</a> to Murry Salby's efforts to suggest that CO2 was not a major contributor to ongoing warming in the twentieth century by the simple expedient of changing the scale ratio between two graphs that compared CO2 concentrations and temperature. By greatly reducing the number of parts per million of CO2 in the scale relative to the degrees centigrade when comparing observations, Salby drastically increases the apparent slope of the CO2 observations relative to the temperature observations, thereby artificially creating an appearance of disparity where none exists.<br />
<br />
I recently noticed the same two charts were used by Salby in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0">his lecture at Hamburg</a>. Not only were the same two charts used, but much of the discussion was the same. First he draws attention to the close match between CO2 concentrations and temperatures in model projections of the twenty first century, telling us that:<br />
<blockquote>
"Global temperature doesn't just increase with increasing CO2 - it tracks it, almost perfectly."</blockquote>
<img alt="" height="253" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UX9Qhta-seU/UpE0lkVzkAI/AAAAAAAAArs/w5B2IdnBAIs/s1600/Salby_Hamburg_simulated.jpg" width="500" /><br />
<br />
As in Sydney, having overstated the close relationship between temperature increases and CO2 increases in the model world, Salby goes to great lengths to draw attention to the disparity between the observed rise in CO2 and that in temperature - <strong>a disparity almost entirely created by his manipulation of scale ratios</strong>. He says (1:02:00):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In blue is the observed record of global temperature from the satellite MSU. In green the observed record of CO2. The long term evolution of temperature parallels that of CO2 during the 1980s. <strong>It's been scaled to match the trend then, as was obtained by models of the IPCC.</strong> With account of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1992, their correspondence is similar during the 1990s. But after the El Nino of 1997, CO2 continued to increase. Global temperature did not. Their divergence over the last decade and a half is now unequivocal."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(My emphasis) </blockquote>
As can be seen by comparing with the transcript of his Sydney Institute lecture from a year ago (in my article linked above), that is almost word for word. The only significant difference lies in the addition of the sentence which I have bolded; a sentence which purports to explain the choice of scale ratio. That sentence is rather ambiguous. It is not clear what Salby mean by it, and he nowhere specifies the method whereby he "scaled to match the trend". More importantly, <strong>there is no interpretation of that sentence in which it is both relevant and true</strong>.<br />
<a name='more'></a> <img alt="" height="289" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kLl0_xcj9hg/UpE0v-L8S2I/AAAAAAAAAr0/F318vAnmKZA/s1600/Salby_Hamburg_observed.jpg" width="500" /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
On the most straightforward interpretation, Salby claims that the temperature has been scaled so that the 1980-1989 temperature trend matches a trend from IPCC models. But which trend? It cannot be a modeled temperature trend, for that would require scaling temperature against temperature when there is only one temperature scale on the graph, ie, an impossibility. What are the alternatives?</div>
<br />
<strong>It may be a claim that the temperature trend has been scaled to visually match the CO2 concentration trend over the same interval.</strong> On that interpretation the claim is false. The temperature trend over the interval 1980-1989 in the UAH (MSU) data set is slightly negative, whereas the observed CO2 trend over the period is strongly positive. Even if we expand the interval of the trend slightly to obtain a positive temperature trend, it remains clear that the slope of the temperature and CO2 concentration trends have not been matched over that interval. Nor does it make any difference whether we attempt the match with the observed CO2 trend, or the IPCC modelled CO2 trend, for the models just use the observed data over the period 1980-1989. Whether we obtain the data from observations or from models, it will have the same slope.<br />
<br />
Alternatively, <strong>it may be a claim that the scale ratio has been set so that the slope of CO2 concentrations matches visually the modeled Transient Climate Response (TCR) over that period.</strong> The IPCC multimodel mean for the TCR is for a 2 C rise per doubling of CO2. As it happens, from 1979 to 2012, CO2 concentrations increased from 336.78 to 393.82 ppmv (<a href="ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt">Mauna Loa data</a>). Given a TCR of 2 C per doubling of CO2, that leads to an expected increase of temperature over the period of 1979-2012 of 0.45 C. Therefore choosing the scale ratio to match the expected TCR requires a scale ratio of 0.45 C per 57.04 ppmv CO2; or 0.79 C per 100 ppmv CO2. Unfortunately, the actual scale ratio in the graph is 4.35 C per 100 ppmv, five and a half times as great.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, for Salby's scale ratio to match IPCC predictions, the IPCC would need to have predicted a TCR of 11 C per doubling of CO2. That figure is far outside the range of IPCC predictions, even for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.<br />
<br />
As a third alternative, <strong>it may be a claim that the scale ratio has been set so that the slope of CO2 concentrations matches visually IPCC predicted temperature increases of 0.2 C per decade (AR4) or 0.23 C per decade (AR5).</strong> Given the 57.04 ppmv increase in CO2 concentration from 1979 to 2012, that represents an average increase of 16.8 ppmv per decade. That produces scale ratios of 1.2 C per 100 ppmv (AR4) or 1.37 C per 100 ppmv. Even the later case is just 30% of the scale factor used by Salby, and it is anachronistic in that Salby did not have access to AR5 data when he made the chart (in 2012).<br />
<br />
All three of these interpretations are reasonable, and represent reasonable methods for determining the scale factor between temperature and CO2 concentration when comparing changes in CO2 concentration to temperature increases to test their plausibility. None of them, however, is what Salby did. Rather, Salby has inflated the scale factor, thereby exaggerating the discrepancy between temperatures in CO2 increase by a factor of more than three.<br />
<br />
Indeed, as he already had a scale factor for the comparison from his first graph, ie, Salby's Ratio (0.69 C per 100 ppmv) he had no justification in using any other. Although the others are all reasonable choices, because he was comparing the difference between the two graphs, between models and observations, <strong>the only appropriate way to do so was to use the same scale ratio on both graphs:</strong><br />
<img alt="" height="424" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LF9wlQmtlnc/UpE1uM-m17I/AAAAAAAAAsA/TTwjXjCbYnY/s1600/Salby_Hamburg_comparison.jpg" width="500" /><br />
<br />
So, in the end, <strong>even if Salby's claim about how he had set the scale ratio was true, it would not justify the choice of a different ratio</strong>. However, his claim is not true (if relevant). He appears merely to have added another misleading statement to conceal his original misleading approach.<br />
<br />
(Updated, 4:19 PM, 27/11/13)Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-91931400699070581192013-09-28T11:08:00.000+10:002013-09-28T23:45:30.399+10:00Skeptical Science and the Lewandowsky Survey<span style="font-size: x-small;">Note: This post was intended as a footnote for a later, longer post dealing with the Lewandowsky survey of 2010. That has been much delayed, so I am publishing this now to clear it out of the way.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/">Some controversy</a> has erupted over the claim that notice of Lewandowsky's survey on attitudes to climate change, the free market and a variety of conspiracy theories was posted on Skeptical Science. As it stands, no internet accessible evidence dating from that time exists of such a post, although <a href="https://twitter.com/skepticscience/status/22332844414">a tweet by John Cook</a> notifying people of the survey on the 27th of August still exists.<br />
<br />
Despite the lack of internet evidence, <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/AGU-Fall-Meeting-sessions-social-media-misinformation-uncertainty.html#84315">John Cook has claimed</a> that a post was made on Skeptical Science in 2010. His memory of the event is vague. He initially was confused as to the year of posting, initially remembering it as 2011 rather than the correct 2010. Further, he infers rather than remembers that the post was removed after the data was collected. His memory that the survey was posted has been verified by Lewandowsky <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/">who has said</a>,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Hi Barry, the survey was done about 2 years ago, and I don’t have the link to SkS: I worked with John Cook directly at the time and; he posted it (and I made a note of it), but I don’t have the actual URL to the survey dating back to the time when he posted it.;I suspect he removed it when the survey was closed because then the link would have been dead."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Unfortunately the recollection of both Cook and Lewandowsky is faulty. Following the method used by McIntyre I have examined the Way Back Machine record. Rather than examining the home page as he does, however, I examined the much longer list of recent articles to be found in the "Latest Posts" in the sidebar. Doing so for three dates (<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100830171418/http://skepticalscience.com/Why-we-can-trust-the-surface-temperature-record.html">Aug 30th, 2010</a>; <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100908022642/http://skepticalscience.com/Ocean-cooling-skeptic-arguments-drowned-by-data.html">Sept 8th, 2010</a>; and <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100923190357/http://skepticalscience.com/Why-we-can-trust-the-surface-temperature-record.html">Sept 23rd, 2010</a>) provides a continuous overlapping record of Skeptical Science posts from Aug 17th to Sept 23rd that can be compared with the Skeptical Science Archive. During that period, all articles listed on the Way Back Machine are still listed in the Skeptical Science Archives.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Given this evidence, I must conclude, as did McIntyre that,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming that SkS never published a link to the Lewandowsky survey. In my opinion, both Cook’s claim to have published a link and Lewandowsky’s claim to have seen it are untrue."</i></blockquote>
It seems very probably, however, that Cook and Lewandowsky are misstakingly remembering the Tweet as notification on the blog itself.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6jWyAaRZS8w/UGZKQwvIcFI/AAAAAAAAAMM/SGZF5lUwlog/s1600/SkSarchive_comparison.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="460" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6jWyAaRZS8w/UGZKQwvIcFI/AAAAAAAAAMM/SGZF5lUwlog/s640/SkSarchive_comparison.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o_MYqRXDpxA/UGZKiKum7GI/AAAAAAAAAMU/WGNPYMU007Y/s1600/SkSarchive_comparison2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="500" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o_MYqRXDpxA/UGZKiKum7GI/AAAAAAAAAMU/WGNPYMU007Y/s640/SkSarchive_comparison2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As a footnote, it is my understanding that some people are intending to make a complaint of academic misconduct with respect to this incident. An error in a published paper is only academic misconduct if it was intentional. There is no evidence that this was an intentional error. Rather, it was a case of misunderstanding and faulty memory. It may be worthwhile inquiring of the Journal as to whether, in their view, the error is of sufficient import as to require a corrigendum. The Journal's view on the matter, however, should be final.</div>
Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-29170909478158787492013-06-10T10:38:00.000+10:002013-06-10T10:42:16.757+10:00More Tol Gaffes <div class="tr_bq">
In a <a href="http://indicative%20of%20the%20quality%20of%20manuscript%20preparation%20and%20review./">prior post</a>, I examined how Tol claimed to find evidence that was "...indicative of the [poor] quality of manuscript preparation and review" in <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article">Cook et al, (2013)</a> - evidence that upon examination <b>consisted entirely in Tol's superficial reading of that paper</b>. Embarrassing enough, I guess, in a blog post, but that gaffe by Tol was in a "Comment" Tol was preparing for academic publication. Tol is now in <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNOHRsMVZFYXdxR0k/edit">draft three</a> of his comment, and has largely removed eliminated that blunder from the text. (He is still insisting that information from a co-author of the paper is irrelevant to his analysis.) Draft three still contains several outright blunders, indicative of Tol's antagonistic intent and superficial analysis in his comment. I examine two of those blunders below.</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">The first gaffe</span> is most bizarre. As in <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNVnRMRE9nTnhXbXc/edit">earlier drafts</a> of his Comment, Tol sought to analyze the ratings for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoscedasticity">homoscedasticity</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocorrelation">autocorrelation</a> to determine if fatigue had caused inconsistency in the rating of abstracts. As I pointed out at <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/tol-erasion.html?showComment=1370200666663#c7942588989937641946">Rabbet Run</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'As the paper states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Abstracts were <b>randomly distributed</b> via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden."</blockquote>
(My emphasis)<br />
This is another case of Tol not reading the paper carefully. As the abstracts were randomly distributed, their order of filing does not reflect the order of rating. Ergo Tol's analysis of skewness and autocorrelation <b>cannot</b> uncover the issues he purports it to uncover.'(Original emphasis)</blockquote>
In fact, the order of filing is by year, and then by alphabetical order of title rather than simply by date, a fact that Tol points out in his third draft. Never-the-less the point remains. Because the abstract order in the Skeptical Science database represents the order imposed by the Web of Science in the search, and abstracts were randomly distributed for rating, <b>the order within the database contains no information about the order of rating</b>. Therefore analysis of the order within the database literally cannot convey information about the effects of the order of rating on the ratings. It certainly cannot be the basis for determining "inconsistencies that may indicate fatigue".<br />
<br />
Tol acknowledges this point. He writes (third draft):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Web of Science presents papers in an order that is independent of the contents of the abstract: Papers are ordered first on the year of publication, and second on the date of entry into the database. Abstract were randomly reshuffled before being offered to the raters. The reported data are re-ordered by year first and title second.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the data provided, raters are not identified and time of rating is missing. <b>I therefore cannot check for inconsistencies</b> that may indicate fatigue. <b>I nonetheless do so</b>."<br />
(My emphasis)</blockquote>
It is hard to make sense of this. Tol clearly acknowledges that the data cannot be used to make the sort of analysis he desires; but then purports to make the analysis he has just acknowledged to be impossible. Nor has he done this purely as an intellectual exercise. In his conclusion, he claims that "The available data, however, show signs of inconsistent rating"; a claim based on the analysis he acknowledges cannot support the conclusions he draws from it.<br />
<br />
Surely he cannot expect this chicanery to make it past peer review. Perhaps his intent is to retain the talking point as long as possible into the drafting process so that it can have its full rhetorical impact, even though he knows it to be groundless. Perhaps it is merely to get a rise out of people who expect their views to be rational, and evidence based. It is difficult to judge the motives of so irrational an analysis.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">The second gaffe</span> is not an example of irrationality, but merely a blunder. Tol writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There are three duplicate records among the 11944 abstracts, and one case of self-plagiarism. This implies that there are four abstracts that are identical to another abstract. Of these four, two were rated differently – an error rate of 50%."</blockquote>
Tol determined this information by doing a search for consecutive papers with the same title (see column A of "Abstracts" in the spreadsheet available <a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/rt220/consensus.html">here</a>.) Doing so returns five pairs of such duplicates. The first pair, <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/isr/1999/00000024/00000003/art00007?token=005c197f371bf9ead39412f415d763f25737b517b462a3842592530482972715a614f6d4e227a9145afe900aab70">Grassi (1999)</a> and <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/9987">Alley et al (1999)</a>, both sharing the title "Global Climate Change", are clearly distinct papers and are not included by Tol in his analysis.<br />
<br />
One paper, <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/20/4/045012/">Yoneyama and Tanaka (2011)</a> is clearly a duplicate record. Following the link from either in the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=Smart+Film+Actuators+Using+Biomass+Plastic&a=&c=&e=&yf=2011&yt=2011">Skeptical Science database</a> returns the same record, with the same <a href="http://www.doi.org/">doi number</a>. The two records are distinct only in that one is published in "Smart Materials & Structures" while the other is listed as being published in "Smart Materials and Structures". That difference defeated the authors algorithm to avoid duplicate records. Both instances Yoneyama and Tanaka (2011) was given identical ratings for both category (Impacts) and endorsement (Explicit endorsement).<br />
<br />
A third pair, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378000000236#?np=y">Uri and Bloodworth (2000)</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969700004629">Uri (2000)</a> represent a clear case of self plagiarism by Uri. The initial sentence of the abstract of the former starts, "The use of conservation practices ...", while the latter starts "Increase in the use of conservation practices ...". Other than the journal in which they are published, I can detect no other difference between them. The two articles are both categorized as "Mitigation". While the former is rated as having "No Position" on AGW, however, the later is rated as "Implicitly Endorsing" AGW. A <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=&a=Uri&c=&e=&yf=2000&yt=2000">search of the Skeptical Science database</a> under "author name: Uri" shows that Uri was very active. A third paper, "Conservation practices in US agriculture and their implication for global climate change" was published by Uri in the year 2000. It differs from Uri (2000) "Global Climate Change And The Effect Of Conservation Practices In Us Agriculture" only in the title and journal of publication. It was categorized as "Mitigation", and like Uri and Bloodworth (2000), rated as having "No Position" on AGW.<br />
<br />
So far there is no blunder by Tol, but when we turn to the fourth pair, <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1149">Shannon et al (2007)</a> and <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/e1359">Shea (2007)</a> - both titled "Global Climate Change and Children's Health" and appearing in "Pediatrics" - we find that the former is a policy statement, while the later is the accompanying technical report. Both are clearly so identified in their abstracts. I presume Tol did not go so far as to check the abstracts, contenting himself with noting that Shea was a co-author of Shannon et al and leaping to the assumption that they were the same paper.<br />
<br />
Similarly, when we turn to the fifth pair we find that <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11367-010-0162-9">Khoo et al (2010)</a> is part one, and <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11367-010-0163-8">Khoo and Tan (2010)</a> is part two of two conjointly published papers. Again both are clearly so identified in their respective abstracts; and so (again) Tol has wrongly claimed two distinct papers to be identical without having bothered to check the abstracts.<br />
<br />
Overall, that means Tol has a 40% error rate in identifying identical papers. Further, inclusion of the duplicate abstract that Tol missed shows him to have overstated the error rate. To have so high an error rate in a Comment in which Tol suggests Cook et al insufficiently checked their data is ironic. Clearly, in that regard, Tol is a far worse offender.<br />
<br />
Of course, we knew that already, prior to the detailed check. Cook et al in fact report the error rate for inconsistent rating (33%). That report is based on the full sample. Tol has been disputing that statistic based on a sample of four out twelve thousand papers. Given that he knows anything about statistics, he knows that his sample size was too small to say anything intelligent about the rate of inconsistent ratings. Nevertheless, he proceeded to do so. As in the first gaffe above, Tol has been presenting as evidence data which he knows to not be able to support his claims.<br />
<br />
What is worse, he has done so in the full knowledge that better data was available, and was presented in the paper he was critiquing. He dismissed that data as mere "<a href="https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/342326978571038720">hearsay</a>". The dismissal is absurd. The data was reported in the scientific paper. That it was only part of the relevant data is irrelevant to whether or not it was reported; and if partial data constitutes mere hearsay when presented in a scientific paper, so also would the full data. Tol has not found a reason to ignore the better data that he finds inconvenient. Rather, he has found a label to maintain a convenient but ill founded belief in the face of contrary evidence.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">To summarize</span>, in these two examples, Tol has shown an inclination to literally irrational critiques of Cook et al. He has tried to present as evidence data which literally cannot, ie, it is logically impossible that it should be able to, support the claims he makes; or which by reason of the small sample size, cannot rationally be projected in the way that he does. In doing so, he has shown a woeful inability to vet his data for validity. Tol, by all accounts, is an intelligent man, and is certainly well educated in statistics. His gaffes are, therefore, not explicable by lack of intelligence or understanding. They are most easily explained by a determination to cast Cook et al in the most negative light possible, regardless of the evidence. This overwhelming bias in his analysis of Cook et al has been seen in <a href="http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/tol-on-quantifying-consensus-on.html">other aspects</a> of this "Comment".Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-30340358505845818242013-06-05T11:21:00.000+10:002013-06-10T07:15:10.538+10:00Tol on "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature"Richard Tol has been turning a series of intemperate and poorly supported criticisms of <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article">Cook et al (2013)</a> into an intemperate and poorly supported comment, currently in its <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNM1RQWkQtTFpQUmc/edit">second draft</a>. Taken to task about the negativity of the criticisms, Tol responded that he did not have the option of constructive criticism because he does not have the resources. <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/thrashing-tolism.html?showComment=1370353353153#c2957482807488263206">Willard points out</a> how absurd this excuse is. In fact, I think he is over generous. A constructive criticism need not formulate a better approach. It need only show the likely impact of the relevant factors on the results of the paper being criticized.<br />
<br />
In fact, it takes minimal resources and time to be constructive in this way. Tol, however, at avoids every opportunity to lift above pure negativity in this way. <b>The consistent bias in his approach shows his claim that he does not have the resources for a constructive criticism is sheer bunk</b>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Taking one example</span>, he corrected his <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz17rNCpfuDNVnRMRE9nTnhXbXc/edit?pli=1">first draft</a> claim that:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In fact, the paper by Cook et al. may strengthen the belief that all is not well in climate research. For starters, their headline conclusion is wrong. According to their data and their definition, 98%, rather than 97%, of papers endorse anthropogenic climate change. <b>While the difference between 97% and 98% may be dismissed as insubstantial, it is indicative of the quality of manuscript preparation and review</b>."</blockquote>
(My emphasis)<br />
<br />
by adding the footnote that:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"1 Cook et al. arrive at 97% by splitting the neutral rate 4 into 4a and 4b, but only for 1,000 of the 7,970 papers rated 4; data are not provided. It is unclear whether they found 40 in the sample of 1,000, or 5 and scaled it up to 40 for the 7,970 neutral abstract. If the former is true, then 319 should have been reclassified. The headline endorsement rate would be 91% in that case. No survey protocol was published, so it is unclear whether the 4 ad hoc addition."</blockquote>
<br />
So, <b>on the evidence available to him all he knows is that Cook et al's headline result may be the result of the correct projection of a subsidiary survey and is therefore in no way indicative of poor manuscript preparation or review</b>. These details, however, are consigned to a footnote, while the original attempt at condemnation remains in the body of the text. <b> </b>. <br />
<br />
His proper course of action given the additional information should have been to remove the original paragraph from the manuscript. Discussion of the "issue", if included should have been consigned to an additional item in the body of the text. Even then, the unverified suggestion that Cook et al failed to perform an simple and obvious projection from the subsidiary survey is unwarranted. (Indeed, a <a href="http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/watt-about-richard-tol/comment-page-1/#comment-480">co-author has verified</a> the simple and obvious projection was made, which verification Tol merely dismissed as irrelvant.) <br />
<br />
Cook et al should have made their method clearer by including the data from the subsidiary survey in the SI. But that is a quibble having no impact on the headline result. But pointing this out would have taken no more time or effort than Tol's chosen course of retaining the implicit slur while adding a footnote that completely undercuts the point he tries to make.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Another example </span>is Tol's comment that:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Web of Science provides aggregate statistics for any query results. Figure 2 compares the disciplinary composition of the larger sample to that of the smaller sample. There are large differences. Particularly, the narrower query undersamples papers in meteorology (by 0.7%), geosciences (2.9%), physical geography (1.9%) and oceanography (0.4%), <b>disciplines that are particularly relevant to the causes of climate change</b>." </blockquote>
(My emphasis)<br />
<br />
This restrained comment contrasts with his clear statement in other cases that the detected skew in samples he thinks is likely to bias the results in favour of endorsements, eg:<br />
<br />
"The data behind Figures 3 and 4 suggest that the smaller sample favoured influential authors and papers, who overwhelmingly support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change."<br />
<br />
The reason for the restraint in the former case is revealed in an email to me in which Tol states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Cook et al. undersampled meteorology, oceanography, and geophysics journals, which suggests that they <b>underestimated </b>endorsement."</blockquote>
<br />
<b>It is evident that when Tol discovers a skew in the sample he thinks will bias the result in favour of endorsement, he says so up front. In contrast, when he thinks the skew will bias the result against endorsement he merely mentions the skew</b> and not (what he considers to be) the probable consequences. Again it takes no more effort to mention a negative bias than it does to mention a positive bias. The negativity then, is by construction. It represents a deliberate policy based on political intentions, not time constraints.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">A third example comes</span> from his analysis of skewness of the sample relative to disciplines in WoS. Using data Tol has provided me, I have estimated the number of papers in the Cook et al survey from disciplines which are over represented relative to Tol's preferred search terms (5883) and those which are under represented (5985). (The sum is 76 less than 11,944 papers rated but not excluded as per Cook et al. This is due to rounding errors and the fact that some disciplines are not represented in both samples,making scaling of the results difficult. The difference should not be significant). It is also possible to estimate the number of excess abstracts in disciplines which are over represented (1711) and those which are under represented (1714).<br />
<br />
These data should have been included by Tol in his analysis. <b>The near equality of the figures means it is almost impossible that the skew in subjects has resulted in a bias in the headline result</b>. In fact, given that the subjects which are over represented cannot have more than 100% endorsements excluding abstracts rated (4); it is impossible for papers from subjects that are under represented to have less than 96% endorsements in aggregate. That means that <b>the maximum variation in endorsement percentages resulting from the skewness Tol draws attention to is between 97.4 and 98.6%</b>.<br />
<br />
This is something highly relevant to Tol's critique of Cook et al. It only takes about half an hour to calculate these facts, so Tol's failure to do so is not due to time constraints. Again the simplest explanation is a straightforward bias towards including only negative criticisms; and towards excluding context that allows assessment of the impact of those criticisms.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">A fourth and final example</span> comes from Tol's new and unsurprising discovery that self rating respondents do not match in proportion the rated papers. Unsurprising because people with strong positions (endorsement or rejection) are more likely to want their opinions registered and hence more likely to respond. Given this the result is as likely to show bias in the rate of response rather than show the abstract ratings are in error. The direct comparison between absract ratings and self ratings is not straightforwardly projectable, but does clearly show the abstract ratings to be conservative, ie, biased towards a rating of (4).<br />
<br />
Though not straightforwardly projectable, however, we can project them on the assumption that self ratings are representative. Doing so shows that <b>if there was no skewness between abstract and self rating numbers, the abstract ratings would have reported 96.6% endorsing the consensus, with 3.4% rejecting or uncertain on the consensus.</b> In other words, <b>the skewness identified by Tol would have had an impact of only 0.5% on the headline result</b>. Again, calculating this result is straighforward and requires minimal time. While reporting it, however, is very useful in placing the skewness reported in table 5 of the paper in context, it destroys that data as a useful negative talking point. Therefore Tol could not find the time for this simple analysis.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">These four examples</span> do not address the major flaws in Tol's critique. In fact, were I to do so it is simple to show that Tol's critique is based on superficial data analysis and a fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms in the paper. These examples show, however, that the negativity of Tol's critique is based on a predetermined desire to undermine the paper, whose results he finds politically inconvenient. <b>His choice to be destructive in his criticism is not because of time constraints, but because he needs to generate, and disseminate "talking points" to allow those inclined to not think about the implications of Cook et al.</b><br />
<br />
That clear motive, evident in both his tweets and his comment strongly suggests that corrections of his errors will not be incorporated into his comment. Certainly his comment will not include estimates of the likely impact of the skewness he identifies on the headline result except where (as with his footnote mentioned in the first example, absurd suppositions allow him to quote a large impact.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-45093631776781027502013-05-27T10:26:00.001+10:002013-06-05T11:24:09.203+10:00Tol's gaffe<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/memorial-day-puzzler.html">Richard Tol has claimed</a> that five out of the ten abstracts rated by Cook et al, 2013 were incorrectly rated. Let's run through <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=+&a=Tol%2C+Rsj&c=&e=&yf=&yt=">the list</a> of those abstracts for him.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337471651774070784">He has stated</a> that he has published four papers explicitly endorsing AGW, indicating that they are among three by he and de Vos, and one by him and Vellinga. <br />
<br />
Presumably he is simply mistaken about one of the de Vos papers, for Tol, 1994 (Greenhouse Statistics - Time-series Analysis II) which supplements Tol and de Vos 1993, is however, by Tol alone. Tol 1994, which states in the abstract that "The main conclusion of part I, the hypothesis that the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect is not responsible for the observed global warming during the last century is rejected with a 99% confidence, is reconfirmed for the updated sample period 1870–1991", clearly affirms anthropogenic factors as the cause of recent temperature rises. Hence we have that the following are rated as affirming AGW by Tol (Cook et al rating in brackets):<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00868194">Tol (1994)</a>. Greenhouse Statistics - Time-series Analysis II (1);</li>
<li> <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005390515242">Tol and de Vos (1998)</a>. A Bayesian Statistical Analysis Of The Enhanced Greenhouse (1);</li>
<li> <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs007040050046">Tol and Vellinga (1998)</a>. Climate Change, The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect And The Influence Of The Sun: A Statistical Analysis (2)</li>
</ul>
Tol thinks the last should be rated 1 (Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%) by Tol. I think that rating by Tol is wrong, and shows he has misunderstood the categories (<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/memorial-day-puzzler.html?showComment=1369497506596#c3901854395955599847">a point made by Willard</a>). Specifically, it does not quantify the attribution, only statistical significance of the attribution.<br />
<br />
That means by a process of elimination, Tol thinks that the following papers all have neutral abstracts (Cook et al rating in brackets):<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022196517982">Tol et al, (2003)</a>. Methane Emission Reduction: An Application Of Fund (3) </li>
<li><a href="http://econpapers.repec.org/article/aenjournl/2006se_5fweyant-a11.htm">Tol (2006).</a> Multi-gas Emission Reduction For Climate Change Policy: An Application Of Fund (2) </li>
<li> <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9566-6">Tanaka et al, (2009)</a>. Evaluating Global Warming Potentials With Historical Temperature (3) </li>
<li> <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19338240903352776#.UaKnL0DI18E">Kjellstrom et al. (2009).</a> On Regional Labor Productivity (3)</li>
</ul>
In reverse order, this means that:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Tol thinks he can state that "Global climate change will increase outdoor and indoor heat loads..." without endorsing implicitly that the climate will warm in the 21st century; and endorse the IPCC scenario A2 as a plausible projection without endorsing anthropogenic factors as the major driver of that and current warming. </li>
<li>Tol thinks he can endorse an increased in the warming caused by N2O and CH4 (increased <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential">Global Warming Potential</a>) relative to Kyoto expectations , with no loss in CO2 warming potential (by definition of GWP) without implicitly endorsing anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the major cause of recent warming. </li>
<li>Tol thinks he can endorse the idea that limiting greenhouse gases will limit warming without endorsing anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the main driver of recent warming. </li>
<li> 4) That he can indicate that Methane and CO2 between them are the main controllers of the "optimal rate of climate change" without endorsing the claim that anthropogenic factors are the main cause of recent warming. </li>
</ol>
He may have a point about (3). He is clearly incorrect about the others.
The best that can be said for Tol is that, perhaps, he was mislead by <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/">Scafetta's absurdly false claim</a> that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission." False, of course, because the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html">IPCC's claim</a> is that "Greenhouse gas forcing has <b>very likely caused most</b> of the observed global warming over the last <b>50 years</b>." Read carefully, that is consistent with <50% anthropogenic warming over the last 50 years once aerosols are taken into account. Inflating that up to 90-100% since 1900 is bizarre, and is difficult to reconcile with the claim that Scafetta is an honest man.<br />
<br />
Tol, however, may have fell for that line. Certainly he has <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/336844141289930753">implicitly endorsed</a> it. Or some other equally absurd misrepresentation of Cook et al. Certainly when he read the paper he did not understand it.<br />
<br />
I wonder what other clear facts his <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-invites-royal-society-fellows-climate-change-discussion/">new friendships</a> require him to misunderstand?Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-46068722490570600382013-04-05T09:45:00.002+10:002013-11-28T23:47:58.375+10:00Salby's RatioReposted from <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/salbyratio.html">Skeptical Science</a>.<br />
<br />
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
On the 24th of July, 2012, Murry Salby <a data-mce-href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&feature=autoplay&list=PLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z&playnext=38" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&feature=autoplay&list=PLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z&playnext=38">gave a talk</a> at the Sydney Institute. He makes a large number of claims in the talk, some of which are even true, while some merely misrepresent the science. Of these, one the worst is his discussion of the relative <a data-mce-href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-a-CO2-free-atmosphere-look-like.html" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-would-a-CO2-free-atmosphere-look-like.html">contribution of CO2</a> (and other long lived greenhouse gases) to the greenhouse effect. Another is his <a data-mce-href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html">continued misunderstanding</a> of what has caused the modern <a data-mce-href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html">increase in CO2 concentrations</a>. I will be ignoring these, and other, errors. <strong>In this post I focus only on a misrepresentation that cannot be explained by inadequate knowledge, or simple misunderstanding.</strong></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
Speaking of the relationship between CO2 and temperature in models, Salby says (29:25 - <a data-mce-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloss" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloss">glosses</a> of unusual words included in square brackets):</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>In blue is the forecast evolution [change over time] of global temperature averaged over two dozen models of the IPCC. It increases monotonically [without reversal], achieving values three and a half degrees warmer by the end of the twenty-first century. The increase in global temperature should correspond to increasing CO2. In fact their correspondence is considerably greater. In green is the forecast evolution of CO2. It too increases, exceeding eight hundred ppmv by the end of the century. Global temperature doesn't just increase with increasing CO2 - it tracks it almost perfectly. In the model world, changes of CO2 and global temperature are isomorphic, they have exactly the same form. Their relationship is so tight, you don't even need a climate model. A fractional increase of CO2 entirely determines the fractional increase in global temperature.</em>"</div>
</blockquote>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" data-mce-src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Salby2012temp_CO2_modelled.jpg" height="282" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Salby2012temp_CO2_modelled.jpg" style="border: 0px; cursor: default;" width="500" /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
Salby's description of the graph is a little misleading. To start with, the simulated change over time (evolution) of global temperature has no short term negative trends (is <a data-mce-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function">monotonic</a>) only because the curve is the mean of "over two dozen models". The course of temperature increase of individual models is certainly not without fluctuations. In the IPCC AR4, <a data-mce-href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/">all model runs</a> had short term periods with negative trends, some lasting as long as 20 years. Further, the curves also do not have exactly the same shape (are <a data-mce-href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isomorphic" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isomorphic">isomorphic</a>). If they did have the same shape, they could be overlaid without any portion of the curves failing to correspond, and the relationship between them would be linear, ie, expressable in the form, y = ax + b.</div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
For simplicity, let's treat the relationship as isomorphic. In that case, the change in global temperature would be a constant fraction of the change in CO2 concentration. In the graph above, the CO2 concentration increases from 375 to 850 ppmv, an increase of 475 ppmv. At the same time, the global temperature anomaly increases by 3.3 degrees C. So , <strong>if Salby's claims were accurate, an increase of 10 ppmv of CO2 would result in an increase of 0.069 C in Global Temperature</strong>. That is Salby's ratio.</div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
After a while, Salby continues (32:35):</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="text-align: justify;">
"<em>In blue is the observed record of global temperature from the satellite MSU. In green, the observed record of CO2. The long term evolution of global temperature parallels that of CO2 during the 1980s. It behaves less so during the 1990s, even accounting for the erruption of Pinatubo in 1992. But after the El Nino of 1997, CO2 continued to increase. Global temperature did not. Their divergence over the last decade and a half is now uneqivocal. In the model world gobal temperature tracks CO2 almost perfectly. In the real world, it clearly doesn't.</em>"</div>
</blockquote>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" data-mce-src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Salby2012temp_CO2_observed.jpg" height="308" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Salby2012temp_CO2_observed.jpg" style="border: 0px; cursor: default;" width="500" /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
But there is a problem here. The observed increase in CO2 concentration in the graph is from 338 to 392 ppmv, an increase of just 54 ppmv. Using Salby's ratio, that suggests an increase in global temperature of just 0.38 degrees. If, however, global temperature where to track the CO2 increase shown on the chart, it would need to increase by 2.54 degrees C. Indeed, the <a data-mce-href="http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt" href="http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt">satellite record</a> shows a trend in temperature of 0.14 C per decade, for an increase of 0.43 C since the start of the satellite record. In other words, <strong>the temperature increase is currently tracking nine percent above the increase predicted by Salby's "isomorphic" relationship</strong>.</div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
Looking closely, it is not difficult to find the problem. In the first graph, shows a range of 5.2 degrees C and 710 ppmv, a ratio of 136.5 ppmv/ degree C. In contrast, in the second graph, the range is 2.8 degrees C, but only 62 ppmv, a ratio of 22 ppmv/ degree C. <strong>The second graph has been rescaled to exagerate the increase in CO2 concentration relative to increase in temperature by 620%.</strong> This is clear in Figure 3, which shows the second graph overlaid on an inset of the first graph to allow comparison of the CO2 concentration scales (Temperature and temporal scales, but not position, have been matched.)</div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" data-mce-src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_salby2012temp_co2_overlay1.jpg" height="389" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_salby2012temp_co2_overlay1.jpg" style="border: 0px; cursor: default;" width="500" /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
To make an honest prediction based on Salby's graph, we need to divide the vertical axis by 6.2, thereby producing a temperature prediction that is correctly scaled for temperatures in the observed graph. When we do so (in red below), Salby's "unequivocal divergence" evaporates. <strong>The divergence in predicted and observed Global Temperatures turns out to be a consequence of Salby's manipulation of the scales on his graphs</strong>, not a property of either <a data-mce-href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html">data</a> or <a data-mce-href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-ar4.html" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-ar4.html">models</a><a data-mce-href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/santer-catch-christy-exaggerating.html"></a>. His rescaling hides the close relationship between predicted and observed increases in temperature.</div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" data-mce-src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Salby2012temp_CO2_rescaled2.jpg" height="315" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Salby2012temp_CO2_rescaled2.jpg" style="border: 0px;" width="500" /></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<strong>I wonder why he did that?</strong></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: justify;" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; text-align: justify;">
Revised to correct spelling, 21/10/2012</div>
Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-49564367371882196532013-04-05T09:38:00.000+10:002013-04-05T09:55:31.013+10:00Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2 - Notes<a href="http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/climate-change-cluedo-anthropogenic-co2.html">Original article</a>.<br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#Timing">1) Timing</a></strong><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#Correlation"><strong>2) Correlation</strong></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#Balance"><strong>3) Mass Balance</strong></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#C14"><strong>4) C14</strong></a><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#C13"><strong>5) C13</strong></a><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<a name='more'></a><strong><br /></strong>
<strong>1) <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="Timing"></a>Timing</strong><br />
Data from <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2008.html">Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2011. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2011</a><br />
Data for Human emissions from land use change from 1850 - 2005 can be found from Houghton 2008:<br />
<a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html">Houghton, R.A. 2008. Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes: 1850-2005. In <em>TRENDS: A Compendium of Data on Global Change</em>. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.</a><br />
<br />
<strong><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="Correlation"></a>2) Correlation</strong><br />
To determine the correlation I took the emissions data for fossil fuel use and cement production from Boden et al (2011), and those for Land Use Change from Houghton et al (2008) (see above). I combined these two to give a record of anthropogenic emissions from 1850 to 2005. I also obtained the <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2">data for CO2 concentration from Mauna Loa</a>, and the 20 year smoothed <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20">ice core data from Law Dome</a>. That gave me a record from 1832-1978.<br />
I adjusted the Mauna Loa data by deleting the 1958 record, and by infilling missing months from 1964 by taking the average of the same month of the preceding and following years. With the infilled data I obtained an annual average for 1964. I then formed an extended record by taking the ice core data through to 1978, and then for each following year, adding the difference between the Mauna Loa record of that year and the Mauna Loa record of the preceding year. Finally, I calculated the correlation over the record from 1850 to 2005, and seperately with the Mauna Loa data itself from 1959-2008, the figures being reported above.<br />
<br />
Also of interest are the correlations with the fossil fuel plus cement emissions only. From 1833-2008, the correlation is 0.987 (r^: 0.975), while compared with the Mauna Loa record from 1959-2008, the correlation is a stunning 0.9996 (r^2: 0.9991). I do not know why the fossil fuel data correlates better than does the combined data. It is possibly because of inaccuracies in the LUC emissions, which have higher uncertainties; and possibly because there have been large changes in the amount and latitude of LUC emissions possibly resulting in changes in efficiency of uptake over time. Of course, it is very possible the reason is something I have not thought of.<br />
<br />
All calculations where performed using Open Office Calc, and the spread sheet is available on request.<br />
<a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html">Keeling, R.F., S.C. Piper, A.F. Bollenbacher and J.S. Walker. 2009. Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi: 10.3334/CDIAC/atg.035</a><br />
<div class="cite">
<a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html">Etheridge et al, 1998 data</a></div>
<h3>
3) <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="Balance"></a>Mass Balance </h3>
As a further extension of the spreadsheet, I took the growth in CO2 concentration in ppmv divided by (Fossil Fuel + Land Use Change emissions data)/<a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q6">2113</a> to convert megatonnes to ppmv. The most recent time in which CO2 concentration grew by more than emissions was 1884. That is a fairly robust result. I repeated the test requiring only that CO2 growth excede 80% of combined emissions and came up with a most recent year in which that occured as 1885. That means that even allowing for uncertainties in the data, it is unlikely that CO2 growth has exceeded emissions growth in the 20th century. The mean airbourne fraction from 1850 to 2005 was 56%, while the that for the Mauna Loa data alone (1959-2005) was 57.6%, compared to the 57% shown in the diagram for figure 2.<br />
<h3>
4)<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="C14"></a> Declining C14 ratios </h3>
One subtlety to watch for is that dissolved carbon has a much lower C14 content than atmospheric CO2 or land plants. This means that a sufficiently large outgassing from the ocean would also depress the C14 concentration in the atmosphere, but not as rapidly as does the emissions of fossil fuels.<br />
<h3>
5) <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="C13"></a>Declining C13/C12 ratio</h3>
C13/C12 ratios are measured as d<sup>13</sup>C, where:<br />
d<small><sup>13</sup></small>C<small><sub>sample</sub></small> = {((<small><sup>13</sup></small>C/<small><sup>12</sup></small>C sample) / (<small><sup>13</sup></small>C/<small><sup>12</sup></small>C standard)) - 1} x 1000<br />
The <a href="http://www4.nau.edu/cpsil/isotopes.htm">standard is the C!3/C!2 ratio of </a><a href="http://www4.nau.edu/cpsil/isotopes.htm">Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB)</a>, or 0.0112372<br />
It follows that C13/C12<sub>sample</sub> = 0.0112372 * ((d<small><sup>13</sup></small>C<small><sub>sample</sub>/1000) + 1)</small><br />
The following are the d<small><sup>13</sup></small>C (C13/C12) of various sources of CO2 emissions.<br />
From the<a href="http://www.sksforum.org/redirect.php?t=6364&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bgs.ac.uk%2Fdownloads%2Fbrowse.cfm%3Fsec%3D8%26cat%3D40"> British Geological Survey</a> article, <a href="http://www.sksforum.org/redirect.php?t=6364&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bgs.ac.uk%2Fdownloads%2Fstart.cfm%3Fid%3D432">Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle</a> (PDF):<br />
Volcanic emissions:<br />
Divergent Plate Boundaries: -4 +/-2.5 parts per thousand C13 (0.0111923); Emissions: 66-97 Megatons Carbon per year<br />
Intraplate Hotspots: -4 +/-2.5 parts per thousand C13 (0.0111923); Emissions: 80-132 Megatons Carbon per year<br />
Convergent Plate Boundaries: +2.5 to -12 parts per thousand C13 (0.0112653 to 0.0111024); Emissions: 66-135 Megatons Carbon per year<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.sksforum.org/redirect.php?t=6364&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whoi.edu%2Fcms%2Ffiles%2Fkcasciotti%2F2006%2F11%2FQuay1992_15383.pdf">Quay et al (1992)</a> and <a href="http://www.sksforum.org/redirect.php?t=6364&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkiwi.atmos.colostate.edu%2Fpubs%2FFung-etal-1997.pdf">Fung et al (1997)</a> (in brackets):<br />
Fossil Fuels: - 27 (-24 to -28) parts per thousand (0.0109338)<br />
Biomass: -27 parts per thousand (0.0109338)<br />
(C3 plants: -27.5 parts per thousand)<br />
(C4 plants: -3 to -6 parts per thousand)<br />
Atmosphere: -8 parts per thousand (0.0111473)<br />
Ocean: 0 to 2 parts per thousand (0.0112372 to 0.0112597)From <a href="http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/3/1/19.short">Hudon (1975)</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Cement: 0 parts per thousand (0.0112372)<br />
I will assume (perhaps rashly) that the mean C13 concentration in emissions from convergent plate boundaries is the midpoint of the range of values given, ie, -4.75 parts per thousand. In that event, the net volcanic emissions from convergent plate boundaries will increase the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere contrary to what has been occuring. However, even if all convergent plate boundary emissions had a dC13 of -12, as they represent only a third of all volcanic emissions, the net impact would still be a dC13 for all volcanic emissions approximately equal to 7, still increasing the C13/C12 ratio. Indeed, even if all convergent plate boundaries had a dC13 of -12, and they represented 50% of all volcanic emissions, the net effect of volcanism would be no change in atmospheric dC13. The odds of that are, however, very remote on available information; and it must be considered a best case scenario for volcanic outgassing on available information. Ergo, there is buckley's chance that volcanic emissions have caused any decline in the C13/C12 ratio.<br />
Further, recalling from Miller et al that uptake by the ocean discriminates by 2 parts per thousand, and that consequently outgassing would discriminate in the reverse direction, we can see that the dC13 of CO2 released by oceanic outgassing would be at most a quarter of that of the atmosphere itself. As with volcanic emissions, not only would oceanic outgassing not cause a fall in the C13/C12 ratio in the atmosphere, it would cause the reverse.Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-12297449751710062072013-04-05T09:34:00.001+10:002013-04-05T09:51:53.678+10:00Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2Reposted from <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html">Skeptical Science</a>.<br />
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Anthropogenic CO2?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=384">supporting evidence</a>? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#start">The start of the growth in CO2</a> concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;</li>
<li>Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#correlates">correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions</a>, hence anthropogenic;</li>
<li>Annual CO2 concentration growth is <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#mass">less than Annual CO2 emissions</a>, hence anthropogenic;</li>
<li><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#c14">Declining C14 ratio</a> indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);</li>
<li><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#c13">Declining C13 ratio</a> indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;</li>
<li><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#oxygen">Declining O2 concentration</a> indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;</li>
<li>Partial pressure of <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#ocean">CO2 in the ocean is increasing</a>, hence not oceanic outgassing;</li>
<li>Measured <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#volcanic">CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions</a>; hence not volcanic;</li>
<li><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#biomass">Known changes in biomass too small</a> by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and</li>
<li><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#past">Known changes of CO2 concentration</a> with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.</li>
</ol>
<a name='more'></a><h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="start"></a>1) The start of the event</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems">Annual emissions of CO2</a> by human use of fossil fuels rose from 3 million tonnes of Carbon (11 million tonnes of CO2) in 1751 to 54 million tonnes of Carbon (198 million tonnes of CO2) in 1850. After that fossil fuel use rose sharply so that by 2008, annual emissions (including from cement manufacture) had risen to 8749 million tonnes of Carbon (32 billion tonnes of CO2). The <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr75">rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2</a> also began around 1750 and has followed the emissions up. This extraordinary coincidence strongly suggests that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of the rise in CO2 concentration.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="382" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_Emissions_Levels_Knorr.gif" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf">Wolfgang Knorr, 2009</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="correlates"></a>2) The close correlation</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The increase in CO2 concentration over the long term (1850-2005) almost exactly correlates (corr.: 0.997; R^2: 0.993) with cumulative anthropogenic emissions from all sources <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/1850-2005.txt">including Land Use Change (LUC)</a>. The close correlation has continued in recent times, with a correlation of 0.9995 when compared to the Mauna Loa record (r^2: 0.999). So exact a correlation <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/other/Sicilypaper.pdf">would be extraordinary if anthropogenic emissions were not the cause</a> of the increase in CO2 concentration.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="378" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/modified_mlo_seas_adj_ff.jpg" width="500" /><br />
(<a href="http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_seas_adj_fossil_fuel_trend.html">Scripps Institute</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="mass"></a>3) The mass balance</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the course of the twentieth century, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere measured in tonnes has been less than anthropogenic emissions in every year, and has <a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/hl-full.htm">averaged only 56% of anthropogenic emissions</a> over the period from 1850-2005. Indeed, growth in atmospheric emissions probably has not exceeded anthropogenic emissions since the early 1880s, approximately the time anthropogenic emissions reached the equivalent of 0.45 ppmv of atmospheric concentration. It is interesting to note that the airbourne fraction, ie, the atmospheric increase divided by total emissions, has increased slightly in recent times. This means that natural carbon reservoirs have acted as a net sink over the course of the 20th century, and strongly indicates that the source of <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm">the increase in CO2 concentration</a> <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html">is anthropogenic</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="419" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2massbalance.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(Adapted from <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u">Cawley, 2011</a>; data from <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#atmospheric">CDIAC</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="c14"></a>4) Declining C14 ratio</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm">Carbon 14</a> is formed in the atmosphere by collisions between cosmic rays and Nitrogen. It has a very short half life (5,730 years), but atmospheric C14 is continuously replenished, maintaining a near constant concentration. Buried C14 is not replenished, however. As a result, whether from volcanoes or fossil fuels, CO2 from long-buried sources has effectively no C14. The addition of large quantities of CO2 from a long-buried source to the atmosphere will result in a significant decline in C14 concentration in the atmosphere, which is what we see. More recent, high precision measurements show the <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JD016533.shtml">decline in C14 continued</a> after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing.This is strong evidence that the source of the increased concentration of CO2 is fossil carbon, either from volcanoes or from fossil fuels.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/14Cratio.png"><img alt="" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/14Cratio.png" width="500" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2006/6862/pdf/LevinRAD2000.pdf">Levin and Hesshaimer 2006</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="c13"></a>5) Declining C13/C12 ratio</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Carbon has two stable varieties (isotopes), C12 an C13. Because C13 has an extra neutron, it is heavier. In photosynthesis, most plants find it easier to take up the lighter C12, and do so at a higher rate than they take up C13, with the result that carbon compounds formed from the products of photosynthesis, including plants, animals and fossil fuels have a lower C13 to C12 ratio than does the atmosphere. Introducing a large quantity of CO2 derived from photosynthesis would cause the C13/C12 ratio to decline. In contrast, CO2 introduced from volcanoes or from outgassing from the ocean would not significantly affect the C13/C12 ratio. In fact the global C13/C12 ratio has declined, which is very strong evidence the source of the CO2 increase has was C12 enriched, ie, derived from photosynthesis. Therefore it is very strong evidence that it comes from the biosphere or fossil fuels, rather than from volcanoes or oceanic outgassing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="316" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/dC13Bohmetal.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GC000264.shtml">Bohm et al, 2002</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="oxygen"></a>6) Declining oxygen concentration</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because the change in solubility of O2 in water with change in temperature significantly differs from that of CO2, the change in O2 concentration is not affected by other possible CO2 sinks. That means the decline in CO2 concentration means any large unknown natural sources of CO2 must not come from a source of combustion but must come from a low C14 source generated by photosynthesis. These facts together almost completely preclude the existence of such putative natural sources. Because of the importance of the O2 decline, it is worthwhile looking at the chart below from the IPCC TAR which shows it:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig3-4.gif"><img alt="" src="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig3-4.gif" width="500" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm">Source</a>)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The observed decline in O2 is straightforward. The diagonal arrow from the start point marked "fossil fuel burning" represents the expected change in CO2 and O2 concentrations from known fossil fuel consumption. The arrow marked "ocean uptake" represents the uptake of CO2 by the ocean, which does not affect the O2 level. The arrow marked "land uptake" is the uptake of CO2 and release of O2 by photosynthesis, which also decreases the CO2 concentration and increases the O2 concentration. Finally, the small arrow marked "outgassing" represents outgassing of O2 from the ocean, which does not affect CO2 concentration. That outgassing is partly the result of a warming ocean, and partly a result of the very slight decrease in the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere. These factors are reasonably, but not exactly known. It is important to note that because the fall in O2 concentration is significantly less than that predicted from known combustion of fossil fuels, the uptake of CO2 by photosynthesis must exceed the combustion or decay of modern organic material from either anthropogenic (Land Use Changes) or natural sources.</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="ocean"></a>7) Increasing CO2 concentrations in the ocean </h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Simultaneously with the rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the concentration of<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=mackieOAposts"> CO2 (and its equilibrium products)</a> in the ocean <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acidification-Not-Enough-Buffering-To-Avert-The-Suffering.html">has been increasing</a>. The rise in CO2 in the ocean is referred to as an increase in the "partial pressure" of CO2, and results in a simultaneous decline in the partial pressure of Hydrogen (pH), ie, an <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Oceans-Acidifying-Faster_NSF.html">increase in the ocean's acidity</a>. If the amount of CO2 in the ocean was falling, the partial pressure of CO2 would be falling, and the pH rising. This is very strong evidence that oceanic outgassing is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="348" src="http://serc.carleton.edu/images/eslabs/carbon/ocean_co2_ph.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.html">Source</a> )</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="volcanic"></a>8) <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm">Measured volcanic emissions</a></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Scientists have used a variety of methods to determine the CO2 emissions from volcanoes. A common method is to use a tracer gas, ie, a gas emitted from volcanoes but which does not stay in the atmosphere for long. Determining the emissions rates of the tracer gas from volcanoes, together with the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere allows the overall level of volcanic activity to be measured. Once that is measured, measurements determining average rates of CO2 emissions for a given amount of activity can be used to determine the global CO2 emissions from volcanoes. Other techniques are used to measure CO2 emissions from volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges and <a href="http://www.geo.mtu.edu/EHaz/ConvergentPlatesClass/wallace/Wallace_2005_SOTA.pdf">subduction zones</a> under the sea. The emissions, from all volcanoes, both on land and under sea, are about <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm">one hundredth of anthropogenic emissions</a>. While there may be some error in the estimates, it is unlikely that the error would be large enough for volcanoes to be emitting a sizable fraction of anthropogenic emissions. That strongly suggests <a href="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php">volcanic emissions are not the source of the increased CO2 concentration</a>.<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf"></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="538" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GerlachACM.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(Ratio of anthropogenic to volcanic CO2 emissions; <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf">source</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="biomass"></a>9) Known changes in biomass</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anthropogenic Emissions from Land Use change and deforestation represent 10% of all human emissions (<a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/hl-full.htm#LandUseChange">0.9 PgC of 10 PgC</a>). Over the last century, human-caused deforestation and other land use changes have been by far the largest cause of change in land cover, and hence natural changes cannot be significantly larger than that.(<a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/">Source</a>) Indeed, as discussed regarding the declining oxygen concentration, that decline together with the land uptake shows that the biosphere is a net sink for CO2.</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818" name="past"></a>10) Past changes in CO2 concentration</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During past "ice ages" (glacials) CO2 concentrations have correlated with temperature, with approximately a 22 ppmv increase in CO2 for every 1 degree increase in temperature. In more recent historical times, there was an increase in CO2 concentration during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) relative to the Little Ice Age (LIA) of about 10 ppmv for approximately a 1 degree C change in temperature. Given that global temperatures have increased by 0.7 C since 1850, we would expect an increase in CO2 concentration of between 7 and 15 ppmv based on historical precedents. That CO2 concentrations have increased by approximately 110 ppmv over that period is very strong evidence that the source of the increase was not outgassing from the ocean.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Lawdome75yrco2.svg/506px-Lawdome75yrco2.svg.png"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Lawdome75yrco2.svg/506px-Lawdome75yrco2.svg.png" width="500" /></a></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yrco2.svg">Source</a>)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Playing Climate Change Cluedo</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a child I enjoyed playing Cluedo (Clue in the US market). I soon learned you discovered more from the questions people did not respond to than from those that they did, and developed a matrix from which to plot responses and non-responses. Filling in the matrix soon honed in on the correct answer, who killed whom, with what and where. Science is sometimes like that. The lines of evidence are the questions we put, and if we plot out our matrix, it quickly becomes clear that it is the humans who have caused the rise in CO2 levels, by burning fossil fuels in the twentieth century. Every other hypothesis makes a host of predictions that do not pass the test of the evidence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="227" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/matrix_CO2_2.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Correction: The figures in <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8038158934492547818#correlates">section (2)</a> have been corrected as of 12:45 PM, 29/07/2012. The nature and reason for the correction explained in <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1534#82874">my comment of 12:40 PM of that date</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bybrisbanewaters.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/climate-change-cluedo-anthropogenic-co2_5.html">Notes</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-78106598427918480502013-04-05T09:34:00.000+10:002013-04-05T09:48:33.104+10:00Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere<span style="color: navy;">Reposted from <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html">Skeptical Science</a>.</span><br />
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: navy;">Heating and Heat Flow</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some physics, everyone knows. In our daily lives we encounter the effects of physics all the time, and as a result, we know what physics predicts in those circumstances at a gut level. We may not be able to put it into numbers. We may not be able to apply it in novel situations. But we know it all the same.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One example is as simple as putting on a blanket. We know that if we want warm something up, we can increase the supply of heat - or we can reduce the escape of heat. Either is effective. If you have a pot that is simmering and you want to bring it to the boil, you can turn the heat up, or you can put on the lid. If we put on the lid, the pot will go nicely from simmering to boiling, and we don't need to turn up the heat even slightly. Indeed, if we are not careful to turn down the heat, the pot may well boil over.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, if you have two identical motors running with an identical load and speed (Revolutions Per Minute), one with the water pump working and one without, we are all physicist enough to say that the second one will run hotter. It does not matter that the energy supplied as fuel is identical in both cases. The fact that heat escapes more easilly with water circulating through the radiator will keep the first cooler. The consequence is that stopping the the water from circulating will lead second motor to disaster.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nor do we find people who doubt this. Suppose somebody told us their water pump was broken, but that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibited transfer of heat from a cooler place (the water) to a hotter place (the engine block), so they'ld be fine so long as they didn't rev any faster than normal, we'ld look at them in complete disbelief. Or we would if we were too polite to burst out laughing. And if they set out cross country confident in their belief, it doesn't matter what destination they claim they're heading for. Rather, as we all know, they're really heading for a breakdown!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="328" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/iStock_000003384742Small.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
(Image copyright to <a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo">iStock</a>, and not to be reproduced without their permission.)</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: navy;">Heat Flow to Space</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This physics that everyone knows is not only true of pots and radiators. It is true of the Earth as well. The Earth is warmed by our remarkably stable Sun. As a result, the Earth's surface radiates energy to space, and over time the incoming energy balances the outgoing energy. The process is made more complicated, however, by the existence of Infra Red (IR) absorbing molecules in the atmosphere. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Without those molecules, Infra Red radiation from the Earth's surface would travel directly to space, cooling the Earth quickly and efficiently. At certain wavelengths of Infra Red radiation, however, those molecules absorb many, or all, of the photons emitted from the Earth's surface. That energy is often redistributed among other molecules by collision, but eventually some of the redistributed energy will be reradiated by the Infra Red absorbing molecules. This process absorption, redistribution and then re-emission may occur many times before the energy escapes the atmosphere, but eventually it will either by being emitted to space, or back to the surface.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Intuitively, the energy that goes through multiple stages of absorption, redistribution and re-emission will not escape to space as fast that which is emitted directly to space from the surface. This intuition is sound, but it depends essentially on one factor, the temperature of the atmosphere.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We can see this by considering a fundamental law that governs the radiation of energy, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law">Stefan-Boltzmann Law</a>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="22" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/a37d86028bdccad790583452b7532697.png" width="91" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In words, that is J-star equals epsilon sigma T to the fourth power, but we don't need to worry about that. What we need to notice is that J-star, which is the energy radiated over a given time from a given area, is proportional to the fourth power of T, ie, temperature. If the temperature doubles, the energy radiated increases sixteen-fold. If it triples, it increases eighty-one- fold. And so on. So, if the temperature of the atmosphere is different from that of the surface, the absorption, redistribution and re-emission of IR radiation by molecules in the atmosphere will certainly change the rate at which heat escapes to space.</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: navy;">Higher is Colder</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is another piece of physics everyone knows. It is that as you go higher in the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets colder. That is the reason why some mountain peaks are snow covered while their bases are still warm. This is not a universal law. It is not true, for example, in the stratosphere where the absorption of UltraViolet radiation from the Sun causes temperatures to rise with increased height. But eighty percent of the Earth's atmosphere is in the troposphere (the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere), and most radiation leaving the top of the troposphere escapes to space. And in the troposphere, as you get higher, the temperature gets lower. On average, the temperature drops by 6.5 degrees C for every thousand meters of altitude you climb. That means, for example, that the temperatures fall by about 24.5 degrees C as you climb to the summit of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Fuji"> Mount Fuji</a>, and by 50 to 100 degrees as you rise to the top of the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere"> troposphere</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="375" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FujiSunriseKawaguchiko2025WP.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We have already seen that temperature significantly effects the radiation of heat. Colder objects radiate less energy, and the Infra-Red absorbing molecules in the atmosphere are colder than the surface. Therefore it is no surprise that the Infra-Red absorbing molecules in the atmosphere radiate less energy to space than they absorb from the warmer surface. That difference is the essence of the greenhouse effect.</div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333399;">No More Arm Waving</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It would be helpfull to recapitulate at this point. So far we have noted four simple facts:</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>That if you reduce the escape of heat, but do not reduce the incoming heat, things warm up;</li>
<li>That the atmosphere contains molecules that absorb Infra-Red radiation;</li>
<li>That radiated energy depends on the temperature of the radiating object; and</li>
<li>That the atmosphere gets cooler as you get higher, so that the Infra-Red absorbing molecules in the atmosphere radiate less energy to space than they absorb from the surface.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These four facts imply the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect, ie, that the presence of Infra-Red absorbing molecules in the atmosphere results in the surface being warmer than it otherwise would be.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In science, however, purely verbal reasoning like this is considered suspect. The reason is that sometimes odd effects occur that render verbal reasoning moot. So in science, there is no substitute for putting the theory into a mathematical form. It gets rid of the arm waving.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fortunately for us, scientists have already put this theory into mathematical form, at a very detailed level. We can access this work, free of charge, by using the <a href="http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.doc.html">Modtran Model</a>. The Modtran Model shows the radiation up or down over a column of atmosphere under particular conditions. By changing the conditions, you can explore the predicted effects of those changes on upward or downward radiation at any level of the atmosphere from 0 to 70 kilometers altitude. Setting the altitude to 70 kilometers effectively shows the radiation upward to space from the top of the atmosphere, or downward from space at the top of the atmosphere. Setting the altituded to 0 kilometers effectively shows the radiation upward, or downward at the surface.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Using Modtran, I determined the energy output looking downwards from an altitutude of 70 kilometers using the <a href="http://web.me.com/gyatt/atmosculator/The%20Standard%20Atmosphere.html">US Standard Atmosphere</a> (1). The result can be seen on the following graph as the green shaded area. I repeated the model run, but this time with the altitude set at 0 km. The result is shown by the outer curve defining the red area in the graph below. That means that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the red area</span> itself, which is the upwards radiation from the surface minus the upward radiation to space, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is the <strong>reduction</strong> in energy radiated to space because of the presence of Infra-Red absorbing molecules in the atmosphere</span>. That is, it is the greenhouse effect.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="375" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/modtrangreenhouseUSstandard280ppmv.jpg" width="500" /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: navy;">Settled Science</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We have all heard how inaccurate models can be. Therefore the fact that a particular model predicts this difference in radiation only shows what the theory predicts. It does not show what is actually happening.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Scientists are not happy with theories whose only support is a model. So in 1969, <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1970/JC075i030p05831.shtml">Conrath and associates</a> compared the results of model calculations of radiation to space with the actually observed radiation using the IRIS instrument on the Nimbus 3 Satellite. The following graph shows the result of their comparison. The dotted line shows the modelled values, while the solid line shows the observed values:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<img alt="" height="502" src="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/conrath1970IRspectrum.png" width="500" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The effect of a particular Infra-Red absorbing molecule, Carbon Dioxide, is clearly visible. With the publication of this data in 1970, the greenhouse effect ceased to be theoretical. It was an observed fact.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #333399;">Footnote:</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(1) Default settings except for adjusting surface temperatures (Ground T offset, c) to approximately match the Earths Global Mean Surface Temperature (about -10 degrees C offset).</div>
Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-70589388239884850972013-03-10T21:31:00.000+10:002013-03-10T21:31:09.049+10:00<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
The following is a copy of a rather <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1898&p=2#91900">substantial comment at Skeptical Science</a>:</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
It turn's out that Shollenberger has had <a data-mce-href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/stephan-lewandowsky-and-john-cook-making-things-up/" href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/stephan-lewandowsky-and-john-cook-making-things-up/">his post published at WUWT</a>, and <a data-mce-href="news.php?n=1898&p=2#91844" href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1898&p=2#91844">asked his question</a> (<a data-mce-href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/stephan-lewandowsky-and-john-cook-making-things-up/#comment-1243986" href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/stephan-lewandowsky-and-john-cook-making-things-up/#comment-1243986">with no reply</a>). His article takes exception to three quotes in Lewandowsky et al 2013. Just three! Out of thirty-two! Here we where hoping for criticism on substantive issues, but as we expected, given Shollenburger's form, he focussed on trivial weak points because he knows any attempt at substantive critique will fail. Indeed, so unsure is he of the possibility of substantive critique that when alluding to the possibility substantive critique, he merely mentions that others "have taken issue" with aspects of the paper - no link, and no endorsement. It is like criticizing AGW by noting that the skydragon crowd "have taken issue" with the greenhouse effect while firmly believing that the skydragon crowd are wrong.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<strong>Shollenberger, it you have a substantive critique to make - make it! The longer you dance around the issue the clearer it becomes that you know that the paper is substantively correct.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
But am I being unfair? Shollenberger certainly begins by suggesting the three alleged misquotes are substantive issues. He (or Watts) provides an abstract for his post which reads:</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
"Fabricated quotes and gross distortions are used to paint skeptics as conspiracy nuts. The question is, is it a conspiracy, or is it just incompetence?"</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Later, he writes,</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
"People have taken issue with a number of aspects of the paper, but to my knowledge, nobody has noticed Lewandowsky and Cook fabricate things in their paper. That’s right. They make things up."</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Being generous, it appears to have escaped Shollenberger's attention that he has already answered the question in the abstract. Specifically, to "fabricate" something is always an intentional act - by definition. By saying that Lewandowsky et al "fabricated" things, he says they acted deliberately to construct them. That is odd, of course, because Shollenberger later disavows the possibility that the "fabrication" and "deception" could be deliberate, so he contradicts himself.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Shollenberger, therefore, owes Lewandowsky, and Cook, and their fellow authors an apology - and he needs to delete any refference to fabrication from his article.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Indeed, I would go further. There is no suggestion by Shollenberger that the alleged misquotes may not be willful deception (apart from the dog whistle in the abstract). On the contrary, he continuously reffers to Lewandowsky et al's acts in active terms, strongly suggesting willful acts. Only in the final paragraph does he finally say,</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
"And for the record, I don’t think any of this was intentional."</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
It is almost as though he is aware of the "familiarity backfire effect" and is taking deliberate advantage of it to spread FUD, while maintaining plausible deniability. If that was his intention, it certainly workd at WUWT with a number of commentors finding it utterly unbelievable that the alleged misquotes where not deliberate (giving us yet anothe recursion on AGW skeptics love of conspiratorial tropes). Perhaps, however, it was not deliberate and Shollenberger was merely incompetent.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
What, however, of the alleged misquotes. In <strong>the first</strong>, a quote from Foxgoose is presented as alleging that no humans took the survey for Lewandowsky et al, 2012, whereas he actually alleged that no "skeptical" bloggers where contacted by Lewandowsky. This is actually a misquote. However, the meaning of Foxgoose is far from clear, even in context. Indeed, Shollenberger, having quoted Foxgoose in full, finds it necessary to refer to the original discussion for further context to show that it is a misquote. Even that further context, involving as it does a comment by Eli Rabbet, is far from clear. The most probable cause of the misquote is simple misunderstanding of Foxgoose's intentions. That, however, is portrayed in terms only appropriate when discussing deliberate deception, despite, purportedly, Shollenberger believing it was no such thing.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
(As an aside, I do remember some coments to the effect that the survey results for Lewandowsky 2012 were entirely manufactured, so while few "skeptics" where that extreme, it was not (contrary to Shollenberger) a "fabricated" belief.)</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
<strong>The second</strong> alleged misquote is an example of quotation out of context. Lewandowsky 2013 discuss a conspiracy theory that "Shaping Tommorrow's World" (Lewandowsky's blog) had selectively barred access to the site to certain people, with the intention of then permitting access when the purported selective barring was commented on to "prove" the conspiracist thinking. As it happens, nobody was selectively barred and the conspiracist thinking was self generated. Nathan Kurz applauds the machiavelian ellegance of such a device, if true; but then goes on to disagree with the theory.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Lewandowsky et al only quote Kurz as applauding the elegance of the alleged strategy. They do not say that Kurz actually agrees with the quote. Indeed, there primary point may be the point curiously not stated by Kurz. If, as Kurz states, "there is no way for anyone to complain [about the alleged strategy] without matching the stereotypical conspiracist of the study"; and the allegations of strategy where false as Kurz maintained, and people were complaining, then they were acting just like the "the stereotypical conspiracist of the study". That logic was, of course, the key point of Lewandowsky et al's discussion of the allegations of deliberate blocking.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Because of this, I was at first unsure whether I should even call this a misquote. But the cardinal rule of quotation is that if the quote without context could lead to mistaken beliefs about the quoted persons beliefs, a clarrification is in order. Regardless of whether or not Lewandowsky et al intended people to believe that Kurz agreed with the alleged conspiracy (and it is highly dubious that they did), they should have included a simple disclaimer indicating that he did not.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
This is then IMO, an example of inadvertent quotation out of context. It is not, and contrary to Shollenberger a "blatant" distortion of the quote. It is only such a distortion if Lewandowsky et al intended for people to believe that Kurz himself agreed with the conspiracy theory.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
In <strong>the third case</strong>, Lewandowsky et al do not distinguish between words quoted by the person they are quoting, and those he wrote himself. This is unquestionably a misquote, apparently brought about by dropping formating. (The quote was only indicated in the original source by indentation, and not, as it should be, enclosed in inverted commas. Geoff Chambers, the person quoted by Lewandowsky et al, did indicate the source of his quote, but in a manner indistinguishable from the standard method of indicating the person to whom you are repplying in non-nested comments.)</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
Shollenberger finds something far worse here. He accuses Lewandowsky et al of fabricating the quote, whereas, all that happened was an indent was dropped. He further accuses them of siting an inaccessible source, saying:</div>
<blockquote style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
"As though that wasn’t bad enough, neither comment can be viewed by readers of the paper as the comments were both edited/deleted by moderators of the site associated with two primary authors of this paper!" </blockquote>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
In fact, the post quoted by Chambers has been deleted from the site, and hence is inaccessible, except, possibly to moderators of the site. Chamber's post has also been moderated, <strong>but it took me 5 seconds to find the full quote on the linked site</strong> and to identify that all the words quoted from Chamber's post came from that post without alteration, but with a html block quote command dropped. And, I do not have any privileged access to that site.</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">
To sum up, Shollenberger does identify three genuine misquotes. <strong>As such, the authors of Lewandowsky 2013 should issue a correction for the paper to avoid inadvertently misleading people. Ideally they should also explain how the misquotes occurred so that we can be reassured they will not reccure in the future.</strong> But Shollenberger has still not identified any substantive issue. The first quote is a side reference and has no relevance to the substance of the paper. The second quote, if the context is established, merely shows the logic of their argument at that point was transparent and agreed to by a (presumed) AGW "skeptic". The third misquote, if corrected, merely shows that, not one, but two people found plausible an utterly inplausible conspiracy theory about Lewandowsky 2012. <strong>In identifying the misquotes, Shollenberger in no way builds towards a substantive critique of the paper. He merely resorts, yet again, to the chewbacca defense.</strong></div>
Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.com0