Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Last month (April 2010), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put out a study called “Climate Change Indicators in the United States” (13 Mb PDF). I read through it … depressingly bad science.
To start with, they parrot the findings of the IPCC as their “evidence” that everything we see in the climate record is human-caused. They say:
The buildup of green- house gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of most of the recent observed increase in average temperatures, and contributes to other climate changes. (IPCC 2007)
Despite the “very likely” certainty of the IPCC, I see the current level of our knowledge of the Earth’s climate a bit differently, as shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Graph showing our understanding of the climate. Image is the painting by J. M. W. Turner, “Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway”.
Having asserted that all changes are due to humans, they then list a bunch of changes, and consider their case as being established. Here’s how they put it:
The indicators in this report present clear evidence that the composition of the atmosphere is being altered as a result of human activities and that the climate is changing. They also illustrate a number of effects on society and ecosystems related to these changes.
Now, that particular statement is very carefully crafted. It is very painstakingly worded so that no one can say that they claimed the changes in climate are caused by the changes in the “composition of the atmosphere” … but heck, if you mistakenly were to assume that, the EPA won’t get in your way.
In other words, CO2 is rising and climate is changing … stunning news.
But that’s just the start. The individual parts of the report are marked by plain old bad science.
Here’s one example among many. This is the record of “heat waves”, which they define as follows:
While there is no universal definition of a heat wave, this indicator defines a heat wave as a four-day period with an average temperature that would only be expected to occur once every 10 years, based on the historical record.
This indicator reviews trends in the U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index between 1895 and 2008. This index tracks the frequency of heat waves across the lower 48 states, but not the intensity of these episodes. The index uses daily maximum temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which keeps records from weather stations throughout the nation. Approximately 300 to 400 stations reported data from 1895 to 1910; over the last 100 years, the number of stations has risen to 700 or more.
The index value for a given year could mean several different things. For example, an index value of 0.2 in any given year could mean that 20 percent of the recording stations experienced one heat wave; 10 percent of stations experienced two heat waves; or some other combination of stations and episodes resulted in this value.
Sadly, although they say they use NOAA data, they don’t say where the data that they used is located. Well, no, actually that’s not quite true. They say:
The data for this indicator are based on measurements from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Network. These weather station data are available online at: www.nws.noaa.gov/os/coop/what-is-coop.html.
Unfortunately, when you go to that URL, there’s no data. There’s just a description of the Cooperative Station Program entitled “What is the Coop Program?” … but I digress …
Regarding heat waves, they say:
The frequency of heat waves in the United States decreased in the 1960s and 1970s, but has risen steadily since then. The percentage of the United States experiencing heat waves has also increased. The most severe heat waves in U.S. history remain those that occurred during the “Dust Bowl” in the 1930s, although average temperatures have increased since then.
Having said that, Figure 2 shows their data for the Heat Wave Index, the linear trend over the entire period, and the change in atmospheric CO2 during the period.
Figure 2. “Heat Wave Index” (yellow line) and CO2 level (red line, right scale). Orange line is the linear trend for the entire period.
You’d think that the only reasonable conclusions from this chart would be that heat waves and CO2 are not related in the slightest, that there is no overall change in the US Heat Wave Index, and that there appears to have been a step change in the data in 1980 … but this being the EPA, you’d be wrong. This is all part of the ‘CO2 is rising and climate is changing’ mantra.
And you would also think that they would give us drought information to go with this. For example, I showed the change (or rather the lack of change) in the Palmer Drought Severity Index from 1895 to 2009 in my post “Come Rain or Come Shine“.
But strangely, rather than report that drought is no more common now than a hundred years ago, they say:
During the 20th century, many indices were created to measure drought severity by looking at trends in precipitation, soil moisture, stream flow, vegetation health, and other variables. This indicator is based on the U.S. Drought Monitor, which integrates several of these indices.
Why is the U.S. Drought Monitor a strange choice for their analysis? Well, because that particular drought indicator only contains data that goes all the way back to … 2000. Not even one decade of data. And of course, their conclusion is:
Because data from the U.S. Drought Monitor are only available for the most recent decade, there is no clear long-term trend in this indicator.
Well, duh … the USHCN maintains several long-term drought indicators which cover the period 1895 – present, so the EPA chose to only report on an indicator with a nine-year record, and then explains that the record is too short to show a trend.
I could give you many more examples, but my stomach won’t take it. This is the US EPA, however, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. My tax dollars at work …
“While there is no universal definition of a heat wave, this indicator defines a heat wave as a four-day period with an average temperature that would only be expected to occur once every 10 years, based on the historical record.”
Very imprecise wording, according to this definition a four-day period of anomolously LOW temps would also qualify as a heat-wave. It would be interesting if they compared a cold snap to heat wave index.
kmye says:
May 8, 2010 at 1:08 am
“and that there appears to have been a step change in the data in 1980″
Can someone explain this thought in more detail? Thanks!
Isn’t this about the time that homogenization cools older temps. I think that might lead to a step change. Or is that just GISS?
In addition, UHI would seem to affect these numbers as well.
Brent Hargreaves says: May 8, 2010 at 4:47 am
How is it that we have not swept them away? The sceptics have the clarity, the integrity, the wit and the wisdom to see through the AGW myth. And yet they [Klingons] continue to monopolise multinational organizations and government agencies.
When they have the chance to amass billions of dollars — literally — and control people’s lives, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by playing their game as long as they possibly can. And if changing the rules in mid-game, putting extra men on the field, and hitting their opponents below the belt will allow them to win, they’ll do that, too.
There’s no money to be made nor power to be accrued in the *absence* of a crisis.
Phil M. says:
May 8, 2010 at 7:14 am
And you shouldn’t be surprised that when a company contaminates soil or water supplies, EPA steps in makes the company pay for clean-up, not the tax payers. Or that EPA is the reason we all enjoy safe drinking water. Or more generally, that EPA is checking every single chemical used in every industry to make sure the harmful ones aren’t discharged in a way that is risky to the biological systems of the US, including humans.
I agree, the EPA provides many good services. However, I suspect there are many branches of the EPA. The local offices are probably unaffected by the politics and continue to do the job as they have for decades. The central office is very political and are most likely responsible for this kind of nonsense.
This is not unusual in government organizations.
@Slioch says:
May 8, 2010 at 1:29 am
“Willis Eschenbach: “they parrot the findings of the IPCC as their “evidence” that everything we see in the climate record is human-caused”
Neither the IPCC nor the EPA make such a claim, nor anything like it, as anyone with any understanding of the issues and desire to comment fairly would acknowledge.”
Of course they do. That is why we’re having this discussion. If their assertion was “stuff happens”, then we’d all nod our heads in agreement. Rather, their assertions are that the climate is basically static and the changes in the climate are human caused and bad. As a reaction to the assertion, we have summits such as Copenhagen essentially sponsored by the UNs IPCC, where world leaders attempt to cease the alleged human activities which cause climate change. Or the G8 meeting where our leaders promised not to raise the earth’s temp by 2 degrees C. But you knew all of that already. This is also why the EPA has now classified CO2 as a toxin but, “anyone with any understanding of the issues” would know that already. Sorry for the curtness, but I’m only on my second cup of coffee and I’ve little tolerance for people that coyly attempt to deny reality.
As an addendum to my last post here’s an org chart for the EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/organization.html
Notice the “Office of Air and Radiation” is located in Washington and has a climate change division.
Because they’re scientwists?
{RockyRoad says:
May 8, 2010 at 6:50 am
By the very content of your pie chart, Willis, the proportion of each sector is a guess. It is impossible to assign a percentage to what we don’t know we don’t know.}
I don’t know about that RR!
🙂
Figure 1 is a good representation of one of the largest gaps and most vulnerable points in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. Climate scientists claim that they have figured out one of Earth’s most complex systems, to such a high degree that they can accurately predict Earth’s average temperature and climactic conditions 50 – 100 years in the future. We don’t understand how the sun works (Though Leif and company seem to be making progress), we don’t understand how the clouds work (Though Spencer and company seem to be making progress), we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best.
When looking at the myriad of variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
it is clear that this is an astoundingly complex system and it is absurd to assign “very likely” certainty to what is essentially guesswork.
The hypothesis that humans can effectively control Earth’s temperature by simply adjusting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is fanciful and delusional. The individuals who have propagated this flimsy hypothesis as proven fact are either deluded or charlatans.
Smokey: May 8, 2010 at 7:21 am
In a posting suggesting that data is lacking else where, it is surely wrong to include plots (indicating to the masses that it is researched info) that are one persons personal view?
Phil M. says:
May 8, 2010 at 7:14 am
EPA is the reason we all enjoy safe drinking water.
In America do you not have the freedom to drink contaminated water if this is what you want?! It will save all that money EPA costs you after all!
\harry
I posted this on the “Decrease in upper ocean heat content” thread. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~David Ball says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Interesting post. Indicative of the vast voids in our knowledge and data gathering. Neither side knows how little we know, but at least most on this side are willing to admit the huge gaps in our understanding of the mechanics of climate. That is as it should be, because that is the reality. Posters here understand that mankind is nowhere near being able to say conclusively that Co2 is the cause. Climate science may no longer be in it’s infancy, but we sure aren’t out of the diaper stage yet. Take a big whiff, proponents of CAGW.
Phil M. says:
‘1) Where is this document referred to as a “study”? As mentioned on page 1, this is a “report”. I’m surprised that such a literate group wouldn’t know the difference, as this document is very clearly providing a synthesis of existing data, indicators, etc. Where do they give the impression that this is original science? Does every government document need to be a comprehensive analysis of climate science intended to satiate every audience? This document is clearly intended as a decision support tool for non-scientists.
‘2) If the EPA attributes environmental changes to CO2, you get mad. If they don’t, you get mad. Classic.
‘3) http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/coop/what-is-coop.html. It’s like that link on the left that says “Local Data” is hidden or something.
‘4) On page 27 they discuss their selection of the U.S. Drought Monitor data and rationale for excluding other historical datasets. They also provide a citation for one of many studies discussing drought indices.
‘5) “This is the US EPA, however, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.”
‘And you shouldn’t be surprised that when a company contaminates soil or water supplies, EPA steps in makes the company pay for clean-up, not the tax payers. Or that EPA is the reason we all enjoy safe drinking water. Or more generally, that EPA is checking every single chemical used in every industry to make sure the harmful ones aren’t discharged in a way that is risky to the biological systems of the US, including humans.
‘I could give you more examples, but I need more coffee.’
———–
Don’t you mean more Kool-Aid? If you are not an EPA employee, or relative of one, I’d be surprised. I live in Florida where your glorious EPA did not to prevent the poisoning of the Everglades by sugar manufacturers. But, that’s beside the point, as are most of your comments.
The EPA puts out these reports/press releases endlessly for political reasons. The EPA is attempting to regulate CO2, and has vested interest in pushing the AGW scare. But, neither the EPA nor the IPCC has provided a single shred of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis, so it doesn’t even quality as a theory. It’s a belief.
Note that the head of the EPA has financial interests in carbon trading; so does our president and his cronies. So does the former VP Gore and his cronies. These crooks are using federal laws to enrich themselves and their associates, and instead of speaking out against their abuse of power, citizen’s watchdog groups are revealingly silent.
Look at how they live, and try to tell us that they really believe in AGW.
Someone needs to send them a photo of the September 2009 Arctic ice extent, as apparently theirs only goes to 2007.
@Willis
Beautiful graphs!
You should collect up all your graphs someday into a hardbound coffee table book.
paullm> Thanks for comment.
I think that the connections between heat waves on one side and CO2 and the vicious taxman on the other hand are secondary. On the other hand I believe that it is rather uncontroversial that the Earth as a whole has warmed up since 1890, especially after 1960. I and others might suspect that CO2 emissions has something to do with it, you and others might doubt this, but the fact remains that the Earth has been heating up.
At this point we are not discussing whether AGW exists or not. I agree with you that the graph on heat waves do not in itself constitute an argument for the existence of AGW. We are discussing what effect – if any – the global warming has had on “heat waves in the US”. If there is such an effect, the connection must clearly be complicated, since the spike in heat waves in the 30s does not correspond to a similar spike in global temperature. The events of the 30s seem to be due to the local situation around North America. I don’t know why or how, perhaps other people here do know.
As you say, during the period from 1890-1965, before the global temperature started to rise rapidly, there is a small tendency towards fewer heat waves. But the main impression is one of great internal variability (local conditions?). After 1965, global temperature and heat wave index have been rising simultaneously. But even if we exclude the 30s the rise is smaller than the variations of the earlier period, so its not clear to me if it is means anything at all.
How can you make the claim that CO2 is causing an increase in heat waves when you have ‘an issue’ with the 1930s? Earth=1 Credibility=0.
PhilM
“And you shouldn’t be surprised that when a company contaminates soil or water supplies, EPA steps in makes the company pay for clean-up, not the tax payers.”
I know a guy who used to be a lawyer for the EPA. The big polluters have more lawyers then the EPA, so the EPA goes after small polluters who don’t have money for lawyers to make their ‘conviction rate’ look good.
Once in a while they go after a ‘big fish’, but not often.
They are no different then many police departments who spend all their time handing out traffic tickets for going 2 or 3 MPH over the limit, while the real criminals operate untouched.
mb says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:48 am
It seems to me that the graph tells you two things: First, that there was something exceptional going on in the 30s. The heat wave index exploded during that period. Secondly, if we ignore that event, there has been a long time trend of increase in heat waves.
The spike in heat waves of the 1930s is exceptional and would likely fall under the category of ‘weather’. If you reduce the exceptional nature of those spikes and look at the graph, what you see is a nearly perfect correlation to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Compare that to the correlation to atmospheric CO2. Okay there is no correlation.
The real question is: Why would the EPA try to assert a correlation to heat waves and increasing CO2 when the data does not support it, while ignoring the obvious correlation with a natural climatic cycle (the PDO)? The answer to that question is complex, rooted in everything from fundamental philosophies to funding, and would likely take a book or two to decipher. There is no question, however, that the EPA is currently engaged in massive cognitive dissonance (a willful embrace of the irrational).
Gilbert says:
May 8, 2010 at 2:25 am
Re: Your question regarding evaporation and condensation, read http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf.
The generation of scientists who graduated during the 1960’s and 1970’s gained control of most scientific bodies and government science agencies during the 1990’s. Like so many of the college graduates of that era, they were greatly influenced by the political and social upheaval that was centered in the academic world.
They now control what is perceived as the truth in academia and the civil services of most western nations. They control who is funded and who succeeds and will likely continue to do so as long as they remain in control.
I find it interesting that resistance to their control is coming from two directions. The remnants of old order (plus few mavericks) and the new order that is beginning to rise in the post-normal world. In a way it mirrors the generational change in science that began in late 1940’s and 1950’s .
The problem with generational change though, is that it occurs slowly. Too often the people in charge are still reacting to the issues of the present using the ideas that fit better the situations of the past. In the climate policy realm this means they are trying to apply solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist any more.
Since by definition climate is a dynamic, even chaotic system, “change” is an inherent concept in the name.
Using the phrase Climate Change is like saying “Water Wet”.
But I guess the eco-grifters were desperate to change the channel from “Global Warming” when the warming stopped and just came up with the quickest new tag line they could in an attempt to keep the scam going.
I’d be curious to know if we defined “cold snaps” the same way as heat waves (but in reverse) and graphed them, what we would get. Meaningless as heat waves I suspect, but if they’re going to do one, should not the other be looked at as well? (and I’m living in a cold wave right now, WELL below normal temps for last several weeks).
“Harry Lu says:
May 8, 2010 at 6:54 am
Figure 1. Graph showing our understanding of the climate. Image is the painting by J. M. W. Turner, “Rain, Steam and Speed”.
Would you please give a reference for the data shown in Fig 1.
Thanks
\harry”
Harry, you don’t seem to understand irony. Willis used the pie chart the same way the “climate change professionals” use plots to persuade the masses of their conjecture. Remember they call their future scenarios “projections” not “predictions”. Why? Because a prediction can be verified. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Scientific_hypothesis_and_prediction
What worth has a theory that cannot make a prediction?
“DirkH says:
May 8, 2010 at 10:29 am
[…]
Remember they call their future scenarios “projections” not “predictions”. ”
and maybe their use of the term “projection” was a Freudian slip:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
The EPA and IPCC are beaurocracies, and they are in the business of making policy and proclamation.
They don’t care if they are right or wrong, it’s a matter of adding enough ingredients into the pot to make for confusion, tossing the half-stirred mixture onto a political canvas, and calling it science.
Nightmare:
You have to be rushed to the hospital.
The nurse prepping you for surgery is Lisa Jackson, who is supposed to start you on IV, has no formal training in the subject, and grabs the first pouch of fluid on the shelf.
The doctor operating on you is Pachauri.
He didn’t bother to read the diagnosis sheet and today is more interested in the lastest chapter of his newest steamy novel.
Hope you get better soon.