Yesterday I reposted one of Warren Meyers essays on the hilariously flawed GCCI report from NCDC suggesting that the electrical grid is at risk due to increased weather related events affecting electrical systems. The chart looked hinky, turns out it was. One wonders if these guys at NCDC know how to use a telephone, because one phone call is all it took to verify the suspicions Warren had about this graph below being mostly about a change in reporting (baseline) rather than a real trend. His BS detector is very good. Too bad the people at NCDC didn’t do some basic due diligence rather than accept the data at face value.
One private citizen and a phone call undid the entire premise of this graph portrayed by the National Climatic Data Center. We need more people like Warren willing to ask questions.
Related: see my report on why tornado trends in general follow this same pattern that duped NCDC and why. – Anthony
Update on GCCI Post #4: Grid Outage Chart
Yesterday I called into question the interpretation of this chart from the GCCI report where the report used electrical grid outages as a proxy for severe weather frequency:
I hypothesized:
This chart screams one thing at me: Basis change. Somehow, the basis for the data is changing in the period. Either reporting has been increased, or definitions have changed, or there is something about the grid that makes it more sensitive to weather, or whatever (this is a problem in tornado charts, as improving detection technologies seem to create an upward incidence trend in smaller tornadoes where one probably does not exist). But there is NO WAY the weather is changing this fast, and readers should treat this whole report as a pile of garbage if it is written by people who uncritically accept this chart.
I had contacted John Makins of the EIA who owns this data set yesterday, but I was too late to catch him in the office. He was nice enough to call me today.
He said that there may be an underlying upward trend out there (particularly in thunderstorms) but that most of the increase in this chart is from improvements in data gathering. In 1997, the EIA (and Makins himself) took over the compilation of this data, which had previously been haphazard, and made a big push to get all utilities to report as required. They made a second change and push for reporting in 2001, and again in 2007/2008. He told me that most of this slope is due to better reporting, and not necessarily any underlying trend. In fact, he said there still is some under-reporting by smaller utilities he wants to improve so that the graph will likely go higher in the future.
Further, it is important to understand the nature of this data. The vast majority of weather disturbances are not reported to the EIA. If the disturbance or outage remains local with no impact on any of the national grids, then it does not need to be reported. Because of this definitional issue, reported incidents can also change over time due to the nature of the national grid. For example, as usage of the national grid changes or gets closer to capacity, local disturbances might cascade to national issues where they would not have done so 20 years ago. Or vice versa – better grid management technologies might keep problems local that would have cascaded regionally or nationally before. Either of these would drive trends in this data that have no relation to underlying weather patterns.
At the end of the day, this disturbance data is not a good proxy for severe weather. And I am left wondering at this whole “peer-reviewed science” thing, where errors like this pass into publication of major reports — an error that an amateur like myself can identify with one phone call to the guy listed by this data set on the web site. Forget peer review, this isn’t even good basic editorial control (apparently no one who compiled the report called Makins, and he was surprised today at the number of calls he was suddenly getting).
Postscript: Makins was kind enough to suggest some other data bases that might show what he believes to be a real increase in thunderstorm disturbances of electrical distribution grids. He suggested that a number of state PUC’s keep such data, including the California PUC under their reliability section. I will check those out, though it is hard to infer global climate trends from one state.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Classic GIGO (garbage in garbage out)-type data sifting.Gives me real confidence.
BTW Snow above 6000ft or so this weekend in the Wallowas and Elkhorn mountains
of NE Oregon..
OT: What have these guys been smoking ????
Oceans Rising Faster Than UN Forecast, Scientists Say (Update2)
Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Alex Morales
June 18 (Bloomberg) — Polar ice caps are melting faster and oceans are rising more than the United Nations projected just two years ago, 10 universities said in a report suggesting that climate change has been underestimated.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a63vnEwzft94
“At the end of the day, this disturbance data is not a good proxy for severe weather. And I am left wondering at this whole “peer-reviewed science” thing, where errors like this pass into publication of major reports — an error that an amateur like myself can identify with one phone call to the guy listed by this data set on the web site. “-Anthony Watts
Amateur- From French amateur, from Latin amātōrem (“‘lover’”), from amāre (“‘to love’”).
Sometimes the pressures of providing for one’s loved ones can cause a blind spot. Those who pursue studies based on their love for the subject are less likely to fall into this ethical dilemma. The publishers of this flawed document should immediately issue a retraction. This is embarrassing.
The truth will out….
Douglas DC (20:24:37) :
Classic GIGO (garbage in garbage out)-
Classic, yes, but isn’t it now Garbage in, Gospel out when used in this kind of ‘study’ or ‘paper’ or ‘report.’
“Forget peer review, this isn’t even good basic editorial control …”
Indeed. One cannot help but suspect that this NCDC report demonstrates how desperate the alarmists are at this stage. To not catch this glaring misinterpretation of data in a “peer reviewed” study, pretty much condemns all such peer reviews in this arena.
Kudos to Warren Meyers for critically reviewing the claims of the report. That’s what you’d expect from a science blog run by a true scientist.
Today was Phoenix’s 14th day (for June) in a row under 100 degrees making this the 4th longest sub 100 streak for June in history. The last time such a streak lasted this long? 1913.
“June 18 (Bloomberg) — Polar ice caps are melting faster and oceans are rising more than the United Nations projected just two years ago, 10 universities said in a report suggesting that climate change has been underestimated.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a63vnEwzft94”
The constant drumbeat of these kind of non-stories really smacks of an organized media campaign, especially to those of us who have been involved in such before. There also appears to be an ongoing astroturfing campaign. I wonder who the likely sponsors would be. My first guess would be the media firm that runs “realclimate”, which also appears to be a front for a campaign.
An excellent example of confirmation bias. The data they saw agreed with what they believe – end of story. Such is the sorry state of what passes for science these days.
The title to yesterday’s post was:
“Just where are those grid killing tornadoes anyway?”
More and more recently I’ve been running thoughts just like this through my head:
“Just where are those – – – x x x x x x – – – anyway?
One can substitute any of the false-alarm-stories appearing daily for the Xs. I have yet to read about an alarm story where follow-up doesn’t reveal that there is not really a problem (as this one), or that the problem is caused by something else, or the fatal outcome is only in a computer or someone’s head, or some combination of these and other similar things.
But what keeps me sane are things like this:
“Yesterday I reposted one of Warren Meyers essays on the hilariously flawed GCCI report from NCDC . . . ” (A. Watts)
“hilariously flawed” ??!! I would not have chosen this description of the report but admit it is a good one. There are others – we should have a contest.
Nice work by Meyers though. Cheers all around.
I fear I’m going to have to adjust the parameters on my gullibility model. I simply cannot imagine how anyone at the NCDC (secretaries and mail clerks included) who has looked at a graph of weather trends could possibly think this plot has complete data.
If people who should know better can’t figure this out, what chance do journalists, politicians, and environmentalists who have internalized their AGW beliefs have to understand this?
I’m expecting that this year the mass media begins to figure out that global warming is not just on hold but retreating. I fear it may take a bit more than cold weather to do that. Perhaps we need to talk up the bird breeding season in the Arctic and the late crop plantings elsewhere, in addition to early ski seasons, snow when and where it shouldn’t be, etc.
OT – 15,010,849 hits, keep up the great work.
I printed out a temperature trace from my office over the last week, logged by my handy-dandy USB temperature data logger from http://weathershop.com/USB1_temperature_logger.htm – my cube is often about 78F, too high for my Swedish genes!
I just make a chart showing the relationship between fish food and SST’s
Don’t worry. I expect there will be mass coverage of this error in the media today.
Wow, I wonder who funded the study? If it was with tax payers money, I want my money back.
In any case, this explains why there’s been an increased reporting of electrical failures, but NOT why there’s an increasing fraction of them which are due to tornadoes and storms.
“PUC’s keep such data, including the California PUC under their reliability section.”
Reliability? Couldn’t sensitivity of Electrical Grids also be affected by
1 Growth of the Grid – more cables in more places
2 Age of the Grid – Stressing of cables by other things such as cold leaving weaknesses which can then be affected by induction
3 Re-routing of the grid – Here in Europe this is currently a major change due to changes in patterns of demand.
4 Reduction in maintenance budgets – money is tight
5 Reduced Quality control of materials – see above
I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that this might have been a deliberate ploy for publicity purposes, but cynicism says that the damage is done, the press got what they wanted, a sensational graph to splash all over the front pages, rather like those glaring errors of UNIPCC AR4 Table SPM0 (1) in 2007 (rate of sea-level rise).
Slightly OT. Apparently the new Met Office computer will be able to give near perfect forecasts for localities – how convenient since they have recently received complaints for such forecast failings in Bournemouth UK on a Bank (public) Holiday. SOunds like a case of tell em anything they want to hear to deflect criticism of aour forecasting (sizzling summer not quite shaping up as planned). Latest report from “puter” says wagtd by 2100, yet again, only it’s worse than first thought, as always, which should be worrying in itself in any case. I would always be concerned about a “puter” programme that keeps telling me I got it wrong the last time, & the time before that, & the time before that, etc. Either the “purt” is crap, or the programmers are inept & incompetent. Why is it that these “puter” models keep telling them exactly what they want to hear? At least my comparatively simple even primitive analysis programme tells me I am wrong every now & then, which is very reassuring I must say! Surely we would be better served by dispensing with the incredibly expensive hardware & software & hire a bunch of yes men, & think of the hard-pressed taxpayer’s wallet! According to MO whichever way you look at it it is alarming. Never mind, it will serve its purpose for the next 6 months until Copenhagen in December! One point, I have noticed an element of doubt creeping into things, more mention of uncertainties have been made in a few announcements & not swept under the carpet. Hmmm.
Postscript: . . . though it is hard to infer global climate trends from one state.
Not hard for some entities. Think “teleconnection.”
If we are talking about disturbances that impact the electrical grid there is another factor. That is the expansion of the grid into areas where it didn’t exist before. The installation of new high-voltage lines would naturally increase the number of reported incidents because there were no lines there before to create an incident that would be reported.
My gut instinct is that the graph reflects more the expansion of the electrical distribution infrastructure than any increase in weather events.
Flanagan (22:40:14) :
In any case, this explains why there’s been an increased reporting of electrical failures, but NOT why there’s an increasing fraction of them which are due to tornadoes and storms.
Um, because the ones that aren’t weather related aren’t the ones experiencing an increase due to reporting, i.e., they were already being reported correctly.
Really, Flanagan, you could at least pretend to be objective.
Mark
I’m unclear about the role of Hollywood Producer Laurie David (or other PR spin firms) in this latest gibberish from NCDC. Is this more of the same?
A little research and I answered my own question. The PR firm who spun this report was Resource Media of San Francisco.
http://www.resource-media.org/
Probably been mentioned elsewhere at WUWT. Sorry for the repetition.
I have published in reputable peer reviewed journals and the hoops I had to jump through to get my work published was rigourous to say the least. I cannot believe that any climate paper that suports global warming can have any credibility in the scientific community!
Ah, the collection, collation and presentation of data – a new art form in climate research. I note the BOM has some data on cyclones both in the Australasian Region and in the Southern Hemisphere some of which dates back to 1906.
Don’t know if global warming alarmists ever look at it when they constantly declare that cyclones are increasing but I certainly couldn’t see any trend:
Tropical Cyclones Australasia
1997-2006
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=1997&eyear=2006&loc=0
1987-1996
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=1987&eyear=1996&loc=0
1977-1986
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=1977&eyear=1986&loc=0
1967-1976
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=1967&eyear=1976&loc=0
You can see a similar picture with the Southern Hemisphere data. However if you check Further Information on the BOM website they state:
The cyclone track data was reviewed in 2007 and a large number of obvious errors, omissions and duplications have been repaired. The repaired database has been uploaded to the ftp archive as a spreadsheet as an interim measure. Improved data access tools are being developed and should be available at a later date. There are still remaining data quality issues that can only be addressed by a thorough reanalysis of the data using current knowledge. This is planned for the future.
And if you read further:
The second stage of the databse repair process will require a detailed reanalysis of the database using current technology and knowledge. This process will remove some biases that are suspected to remain in the database. The process will take significant resources, and will be performed in the coming years as funds become available.
Wonder if the record of cyclones will soon show increase down under?