People send me stuff. This one reminds me of a famous wrong way:
Hi Anthony
Today we had some rumour in the Dutch media due to a paper by a couple of econometricians which projected dramatic warming. Ross McKitrick discovered they had used a wrong dataset; We blogged about here: http://climategate.nl/2010/03/09/four-degrees-warming-in-2050-oops-you-used-the-wrong-dataset/It would be nice if you could post it on WUWT as well,cheersMarcel CrokScience writer
This morning, there was lot of noise in the Dutch media (unfortunately in Dutch only) about new research that was claiming a dramatic warming of 4 degrees in 2050. The news report quoted Dutch econometricians from the University of Tilburg. They had done a statistical analysis of temperature data and the influence of CO2 and solar radiation and concluded that aerosols masked much more of the warming of greenhouse gases than previously thought. This also means there is more warming in the pipeline for the future if the trend of global brightening, that has been detected by researcher Martin Wild of ETH in Zürich, will continue in the coming decades. They also draw policy conclusions from their research stating that in order to avoid more than 2 degree warming more drastic measures are to be taken. This news was copied by many Dutch news outlets.
Detection
Although at first I could not figure out if there was a paper behind the news article and whether or not it has been accepted for publication (I still don’t know), I finally determined it had to be this paper: http://center.uvt.nl/staff/magnus/wip04.pdf
I decided to pass the paper on to Ross McKitrick, who, as many of the readers know, published two interesting papers (here and here) on the influence of different economic parameters on the pattern of warming at the surface. Within hours McKitrick came back with an interesting finding which makes any detailed discussion on the paper let’s say… irrelevant.
Remember, their study is an attribution study depending on long term trends in temperature measurements. For their study they use a rather obscure CRU dataset: CRU TS 2.1. You can find its documentation below. The webpage reads:
The CRU TS 2.1 data-set comprises 1224 monthly grids of observed climate, for the period 1901-2002, and covering the global land surface at 0.5 degree resolution. There are nine climate variables available: daily mean, minimum and maximum temperature, diurnal temperature range, precipitation, wet day frequency, frost day frequency, vapour pressure and cloud cover.
Read the documentation
There is also a peer-reviewed paper behind CRU TS 2.1: Mitchell and Jones, International Journal of Climatology, 2005, so that’s OK. However, if the authors had just cared to go through this webpage in some detail, they would have found a link to this page:
It says:
Q1. Is it legitimate to use CRU TS 2.0 to ‘detect anthropogenic climate change’ (IPCC language)?
A1. No.
CRU TS 2.0 is specifically NOT designed for climate change detection or attribution in the classic IPCC sense. The classic IPCC detection issue deals with the distinctly anthropogenic climate changes we are already experiencing. Therefore it is necessary, for IPCC detection to work, to remove all influences of urban development or land use change on the station data.
In contrast, the primary purpose for which CRU TS 2.0 has been constructed is to permit environmental modellers to incorporate into their models as accurate a representation as possible of month-to-month climate variations, as experienced in the recent past. Therefore influences from urban development or land use change remain an integral part of the data-set. We emphasise that we use all available climate data.
If you want to examine the detection of anthropogenic climate change, we recommend that you use the Jones temperature data-set. This is on a coarser (5 degree) grid, but it is optimised for the reliable detection of anthropogenic trends. For precipitation trends, use the Hulme data-set (5 degree grid or 2.5 x 3.75 grid). There are few alternatives to Hulme in the first half of the 20th century; later, to include the oceans use the Xie and Arkin data-set; for the last 25 years you could also use the GPCC data-set.
Yikes. This dataset is not to be used for the type of study performed by these econometricians. Never. Period. Don’t use it. Lies, damned lies, statistics and very sloppy science.
Indur, so far there is no reaction in the press on our results except for the popular newspaper De Telegraaf http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/6250662/___Klimaatstudie_blijkt_miskleun___.html which quotes us. No reaction so far from the authors either.
I also asked Richard Tol what he thought about it. He said the outcome is useless because their simple model doesn’t have an ocean. It assumes a instantaneous effect from CO2 and dimming/brightening on the temperature of the earth. He also said that 44 years is too short for such a detection study.
Another easy criticism of course is that the only looked at CO2 and ignored al the other greenhouse forcings which taken together account for 55% of the greenhouse forcing. Ignoring this overestimates the effect of CO2.
I also contacted Martin Wild who kindly provided the GEBA data to the authors. He was aware of the study but didn’t have a detailed look at it. When asked he also pointed to the fact that their model didn’t have an ocean.
Marcel
They began with homogenizing temperatures….and will end homogenizing your income and lives..BIG BROTHER IS HERE!
Wait a minute!
NickB. (07:04:48), we were discussing that at the Himalayan Hijinks thread. Now I have to cross-post to get the info [ref. kadaka (08:32:09)] over there.
*groan*
Tom Vonk (01.29.56)
I asked ‘Is it possible to model chaotic systems’
I was delighted with your reply. Does that mean that the IPCC’s climate models are scientifically illiterate nonsense?
I will memorise your reply – I do actually understand it, and I will quote you liberally!
Tom Vonk (01.29.56)
But now I don’t understand about these datasets – if you can’t model climate, where do these datasets come in? They are still trying to forecast how a chaotic system will behave. I thought that was nonsense, so does the dataset make it any better?
I am going to predict how this leaf will blow around the garden, and I will use dataset A. No, I will use dataset B. ?? I am going to predict where the leaf will blow today depending on where it blew yesterday?
kadaka (09:02:42)
Oh crap – my apologies! I shouldn’t be allowed to interact with the world B.C. (before coffee)
Arn Riewe (16:33:02) :
‘It just gets funnier by the day! The funniest part is that ignorant media outlets pick this stuff up’.
Arn, I know what you mean but I have to say, in all seriousness, it is not a bit funny. A couple of days ago here, on the Guardian ‘denier’ strand, I asked all contributors to report incidents of journalist malpractice. This morning, on the BBC’s Today programme (Radio 4 – for those not in the UK, this is our country’s premier ‘serious’ news and current affairs programme in the morning) I listened in a state of shock to presenter Justin Webb ‘interview’ Martin Rees.
Webb is a respected presenter but here he became the typical ‘nodding dog’, throwing some apparently difficult questions (but not ACTUALLY difficult) for Rees to catch comfortably. The ‘did the Univ. of East Anglia prof mislead’ and the ‘What do you think of the IPCC leadership’ questions were banal. What was SHOCKING is that no senior member of the anti-AGW camp was asked to comment.
This is shocking for two reasons – 1, As a former senior journalist, I know that one of the basic principles is that, where a story is controversial, the other side must be given an early opportunity to reply. This, then, is a lamentable lapse in editorial standards at the BBC. 2, The BBC shows that with this blatant behaviour it appears to have completely given up any pretence to be accurate, honest and impartial in its coverage of AGW issues.
The BBC is the UK’s national broadcaster and has previously generally adhered to good journalistic standards.
I have complained to the BBC in the following terms: ‘What on EARTH has happened to editorial standards on the Today programme? Where has the BALANCE gone? I have just listened open-mouthed to a pat-a-cake interview of Martin Rees by Justin Webb about the Climate Change debate without a senior scientific figure from the other side invited to take part.
I was a senior journalist for many years and I know – as indeed do you – that the first responsibility of any journalist when reporting on a potentially controversial topic is to provide an early opportunity for an opposing point-of-view. This is BASIC stuff! I am shocked that John Humphreys, a broadcaster who I admire and respect, would allow himself to be associated with a programme that allows this appallingly one-sided treatment of such a serious subject to take place.
The BBC has a responsibility to uphold the highest journalistic standards. Justin, you and I share the same initials but how COULD you take part in such a shameful charade. This is only one instance of an increasingly blinkered and partial approach to the AGW debate that is robbing the Today programme of its credibility. As one journalist to a set of others – you should all hang your heads in absolute shame’.
We must challenge journalists who connive to suppress debate, fail to investigate issues properly and present unbalanced content. The message that came out of this morning’s programme was “all the scientists agree that manmade CO2 is causing a rapid increase in global warming”. Folks – do not let a single instance of this abuse go unchallenged.
Since one week the dutch government is in an “demissionair” state. This means the gouvernment is without mission and cannot legalize/introduce new laws untill al least 9 june, when we have elections. Also the new prepared fascistic environmental laws are on hold. Because of Climate gate, they need some additional support in their environmental vieuw that man is creating global heating. They hope to continue their politics after the 9th of june, after the elections, and therefore these guys from that little, even in the Netherlands hardly known university of Tilburg made this report.
Bill Tuttle (04:06:52) :
Wren (22:53:26) :
As the authors of the paper say:
“What matters is whether small deviations from our assumptions will cause large or small changes in our conclusions.”
What matters is that they used a dataset specifically labeled “Do not use for climate change detection because you’ll get skewed results” and used it for — *sigh* — climate change detection.
Their assumptions are based on skewed results, and their conclusions are based on those assumptions.
It’s like me taking a topical medication for a skin rash — say, hydrocortisone cream — labeled “Not for internal use” and eating it, then concluding that, as a topical medication, it’s useless, because it didn’t improve the rash, and adding that the only thing that could affect my conclusion would be whether or not I chewed the medication before I swallowed it.
=====
No, it’s not quite like that, but I wouldn’t recommend eating hydrocortisone cream.
You should be able to use the Jones data set in the model.The question is had they used Jones instead of CRU TS 2.1, would the results be much different?
Wrong Way Moonbat: click
JonesII (07:29:36) :
“Gail Combs (06:53:51) :You are pointing to a real issue. Global Government it is already working,….”
Yes they have been sneaking it in little by little. The World Trade organization was the big step as was the European Union. Once you wise up to what is going on a lot of the “news” starts to make sense. Control Money (2008-2009 financial crisis), Energy (CAGW), Food (World Trade Organizations Agreement on Ag) and Land (UN control of “World Heritage Sites”/environmental laws) – there isn’t much freedom left for us serfs.
Since there is more than one “front” to the battle for our freedom it is a tough fight for an individual especially when you get labeled a “conspiracy nut” if you mention the different battle fronts.
kadaka (08:32:09) :
BONES:
“…What does work is weight-bearing exercise, which convinces your body of the need for strong bones. With bone and muscle mass, even brains and cardio-pulmonary fitness, “use it or lose it” is the rule, and the body likes to fight back against attempts to tell it otherwise.”
Very true. Testing and experiments on bone growth in horses showed concussion – working on a hard surface – promoted bone growth. Another study on women showed calcium in the urine after just 24 hrs of bed rest. That daily walk and lifting weight is a must esp for us older folks.
NickB. (10:01:19) :
Oh crap – my apologies! I shouldn’t be allowed to interact with the world B.C. (before coffee)
Why I used to take a mug of coffee with me upstairs to the bedroom. It was cold, but it was there soon as I got up. Probably saved my life one or more times by keeping me from falling down the stairs while not exactly awake.
Side note, unheated coffee is great once you get used to it. Flavor stays good for a very long time, soon as the coffeemaker is done making a pot it gets switched right off. Saves a lot of energy. If you really need a warm cup, well then, microwave oven is right there, help yourself.
Gail Combs (11:38:40) :
kadaka (08:32:09) :
Here’s some good news as far as bones are concerned…and it involves CO2 (and probably some methane) 😉
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8201899.stm
Wren (10:59:47) :
Bill Tuttle (04:06:52) :
You should be able to use the Jones data set in the model.The question is had they used Jones instead of CRU TS 2.1, would the results be much different?
Well, *I* couldn’t, because it wouldn’t stand up to peer review — I don’t have the background in either math or econometrics. But you’ve got an interesting question — just based on the cautionary against using CRU TS 2.1, I would intuit a definite “maybe”…
On aerosols: this may seem somewhat OT, but my training in the Fine Arts sugests to me that the prescence of aerosols in the atmosphere goes back further than the Industrial Revolution. One only has to look at European landscape paintings from the Renaissance to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution and one can see the faithfully-painted smog, giving very low visibility which was described (and still is) as ‘Aerial Perspective’ and freqently regarded as part of a romantic artistic convention, but when one considers just the charcoal indistry alone, prior to the Industrial Revolution, this is not an artistic convention at all, but a literal portrayl of visibly filthy air. When English and European artists travelled to the New Worlds of the Southern Hemisphere as a part of and after James Cook’s voyages of scientific discovery, they remarked on the clarity of light and the enormous difference in visibility being quite unlike the Old World. Similarly, the Hudson River School of painting in early continental America displays a similar aerial clarity quite unlike any English or European landscape paintings of the same era.
Daniel H (20:11:11) :
Here is another critical error they made which completely undermines their entire case (independent of the CRU TS dataset issue), on page 23 they state:
“Since CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere (Forster et al, 2007, p. 138), we may assume that CO2 is the same for each weather station and hence we don’t require information at station level for CO2.”
Wrong. First of all, CO2 is NOT well-mixed in the atmosphere. Even NASA’s own chief scientist at JPL, Dr. Moustafa Chahine, said in a recent NASA press release that “contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere”[1]. How much clearer of a signal do these guys need?
Second, how can anyone assume that CO2 levels are “the same” across weather stations? If that were true, why would it be necessary to locate CO2 monitoring stations in the most remote and inhospitable regions of the Earth?
1. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196
Depends of one’s definition of “well mixed”. Of course, that doesn’t mean that CO2 is everywhere on earth the same at any moment. That can only be if there were no sources and sinks at work. The largest disturbance is the growth and death of leaves over the seasons in the NH. That introduces a change in level of about +/- 8 ppmv at ground level in the NH, +/- 4 ppmv at 3,000 m and +/- 1 ppmv in the SH. For yearly averages, the differences are much smaller: a growing difference between the NH and SH (as 90% of human emissions are in the NH), now about 3 ppmv. Thus for yearly averages all stations on earth (and the satellites) are within 1% of each other’s level. Not bad for “well mixed”.
More stations are used, first as backup and second because of the seasonal variations. Nevertheless, in many cases only the data of one station (mauna Loa) is used for convenience, as that has the longest record…
For global warming, as far as the effect is measurable, the seasonal variability and the lag of the SH vs. the NH is of little effect, as the total growth is about 33% since the start of the industrial revolution.
Where the researchers were completely wrong, is the attribution of all warming of the past decades to CO2 and insolation. They completely ignore other natural influences, like the influence of the PDO and other ocean driven temperature influences. And they attribute the global dimming/brightening all on aerosols, where water vapour and cloud cover are a far more likely candidates for that.
Re: Scotty (12:18:51)
Scotty, talking about Bones? 😉
I wonder how much the hefting of the glasses and mugs can qualify as weight-bearing exercise. Also it can take some effort to stay perched on the stool.
There is also the exercise of walking to and from where the “medication” is often dispensed.
Too many variables, further research is obviously required.
Second left from the spacebar—on a Mac, just after the Command key (sometimes called the ‘Apple’ key).
/Mr Lynn