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 …
Jim Clarke> I don’t see a nearly perfect correlation between the heat wave index and PDO, you can find a graph of PDO here.
I don’t know that the data does not support a link between global warming and heat waves in the US. I agree that the graph we are discussing is NOT conclusive evidence. But it could be that the EPA has more up it’s sleeve.
Doug in Seattle says:
May 8, 2010 at 10:07 am
__________________
Sooooooooooooo Truuuuuuuuuue!
It’s difficult to find independent thinking within any generation, especially if they liked to snif glue, smoke pot, take lsd, drink, smoke anything, make love and war, picket everything, surf, grow long hair, wear tie-died t-shirts and bell bottoms with sandles and a rope belt……… what’s the use.
We were terrible!!!
And, we didn’t seem to do very well by our kids and their kids did we; as a generation?
Shame all those Pied-Piper folks we followed are pretty much all dead. Be kind’a nice to…
you know… (snip, snip, snip, snip, snip). Wouldn’t it? Well if those Guru’s were right, we’ll be back again and again until we get it right.
I guess we need to expect this kind of public relations claptrap from agencies like this. It is and always has been the way of the world. I still don’t like it though.
From my essay “The Good, The Bad, The Ugly or Faith Rules Reason” (written with other misinformation in mind) ….Advocacy and sophistry can not and do not produce knowledge, only information. Since advocacy, propaganda and sophistry, like faith are not in a position to add knowledge, only incomplete and often misleading information, they are one step further removed from wisdom. Cooking the books, introducing a bias or hiding data and so forth can not produce knowledge either. Such activities dishonor all those who use or accept the results of such activities. We do not rationally expect honor from sophists and propagandists or advocates of faith. We do expect honor from those who profess to seek the rational truth. Some will say Nikols is only angry that his expectations have not been met. Not so, Nikols is angry that they have been.
It would appear that honor has a price. That price has been set far to low by my standards. This is little more than a failure of how we have allowed our society to be organized. When our grant funding depends on producing the results expected or pattens, not the unbiased results of the scientific activity, can we expect anything other then dishonor and hypocrisy? We know our politicians have a price. Ask any lobbyist, in any capital. Why are we surprised that hypocrisy abounds in every other part of it. Apparently money and power are able to dishonor all else.
For those who think they, their cause or their efforts are above this. I suggest you think again and read my essay, “High Moral Ground”. Since these essay are about the application of Philosophy to and of Science, I repeat again as demonstrated in several other essays: “the end, no mater how noble, can not ever justify the means.” This is only possible in Mythos, it is impossible in Logos. It is usually done by those who have faith they know that which they do not.
Phil M. says:
May 8, 2010 at 7:14 am
OMG, I referred to a “report” as a “study”, how thoughtless of me, I am so wrong, wrong wrong … I should have recognized immediately that it was not a “study”, it clearly was a “decision support tool”. But wait, how dare I call a report a decision support tool, on first reading I didn’t see that you said it was an analysis. No, hold on, I’m sorry, I meant you said it was a synthesis.
So according to you, this is a synthesis report analysis decision support tool, and under no circumstances should I call it a “study” … got it. I won’t make that mistake in future.
Not sure what you mean here. They attribute virtually all environmental changes to CO2, that’s the thrust of their synthesis document analysis report decision support tool … where is it that you think I am getting mad that they don’t attribute environmental changes to CO2?
Went there before posting this thread, looked at that, you should too. It has data that goes back a whole month or so … please do your homework, you are so eager to bust me for some trivial offence that you end up making meaningless and untrue accusations. I tried following all paths I found from that page, and didn’t get to 1895-2009 historical data. It may be there somewhere, I mean you can get to any site from any given site on the web by following enough links, but my point was, they didn’t give the source of their data. It may well be somewhere hidden under the “Local Data” button, but if so, why didn’t they just give the correct link? And why didn’t you give us the correct link, if you know so much about what I’m doing wrong?
Of course they have a “rationale” for picking some pathetic dataset. That’s not surprising. What is surprising is that you think that their rationale for picking a dataset spanning only a pathetic nine years is a rational rationale …
As a long-time conservamentalist, I was around and I applauded when the EPA was created. I agree with and have supported for decades the EPA’s role in keeping pollutants out of the environment.
For you to conflate that with the EPA’s decision to go into the climate business is deception on a par with the EPA’s claims in their docunalasystudy, or whatever you’d prefer I’d call it. And for you to accuse me of not caring about pollutants in the environment because I oppose the EPA trying to do the King Canute job of regulating the climate is despicable.
Thanks, I’ll pass on further examples if those are a sample.
“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 …”
$10 Billion of them in one year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_epa/
@davidmhoffer says: May 8, 2010 at 10:22 am
‘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.’
A large party of really embarrassed males?
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“decision support tool”. Outstanding description. Quote of the week material.
Judge, Jury & Executioner, take a back seat to the toolbox of policy implementation without representation.
James Sexton:
May 8, 2010 at 7:56 am
Oh dear. So, James believes the nonsensical assertion made by Willis Eschenbach that the IPCC claim that “everything we see in the climate record is human-caused”.
How sad that people allow themselves to be so deluded. The IPCC makes explicit reference to non-human causes of climate change. To deny that is just silly.
When they start governing by fiat, which is essentially what obamacare and the epa finding represent, you know there is trouble ahead.
Willis,
If you don’t want to distinguish between a synthesis of existing scientific research, and original research, you may want to reconsider your little hobby of commenting on other folks’ research. I can suggest some reading if you’d like to familiarize yourself with the different styles and voices of scientific writing. If you’re going to continue to comment about other scientists publications, you may want to consider taking me up on my offer, as you’re missing some very well-known and accepted distinctions.
I must have misunderstood this statement:
“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 …”
To me, this sounds like you have a problem with the EPA, in general. If you have time, would you mind explaining what you really meant by those two sentences?
I’m sure you could contact the authors for the data they used. I’m also sure they would be happy to discuss the details of their selection process. Of course, that means an actual EPA employee would have to spend time helping you with your request. Your tax dollars at work…
“Anton says:
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.”
Go to any professional meeting that discusses water quality regulations and there will be a parade of industry “scientists” claiming that water regulations are too restrictive. I would feel safe in assuming that nobody at EPA decided on their own to look the other way while the Everglades were contaminated. But, that’s beside the point.
Willis,
Sorry to be picky, but the full title of the painting by J.M.W. Turner that you used in your posting is:
“Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway”
For those folk not familiar with railway history, the Great Western Railway (G.W.R) was the line built by Brunel from London to Bristol, completed in the summer of 1841. So Turner’s painting is of some of the latest technology of his day – shown in ages-old British weather: driving rain.
“The Great Western Society” is a preservation society dedicated to the G.W.R – and its centre at Didcot has a reconstructed version of a locomotive similar to the one painted by Turner: “Firefly”:
http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/
The G.W.R. certainly contributed its fair share of CO2 to the atmosphere – all those steam engines burning all that coal…
James Sexton said:
May 8, 2010 at 7:56 am
“Rather, their [EPA and IPCC] assertions are that the climate is basically static …”
This is NOT the assertion of EPA or IPCC. The assertion as that an anthropogenic signal is embedded in the otherwise highly variable climate system.
“This is also why the EPA has now classified CO2 as a toxin but…”
The EPA did NOT classify CO2 as a toxin. They determined that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 posed a danger to human health, via environmental change.
I like that graph, The Current State of Climate Knowledge. The unknown unknowns do indeed oevewhelm everything else. But I think the known unknowns, the red wedge, should be at least as large as the known knowns. We know that we don’t even know the temperature trend through the last century with anything near a decent level of certainty. How much more basic can the known unkowns get?
http://tinyurl.com/2l98x2
Brief excerpt:
[…]
It was no easy task to arrive at the most cited original estimated rate of increase of the mean global surface temperature of 0.5 C in 100 years. As with any evaluation of a global spatio-temporal average, it involved elaborate and unreliable grid size dependent averages. In addition, it involved removal of outlying data, complex corrections for historical differences in measurement methods, measurement distributions, and measurement frequencies, and complex normalisations of different data sets – for example, land based and sea based measurements and the use of different temperature proxies that are in turn dependent on approximate calibration models. Even for modern thermometer readings in a given year, the very real problem of defining a robust and useful global spatio-temporal average Earth-surface temperature is not solved, and is itself an active area of research.
This means that determining an average of a quantity (Earth surface temperature) that is everywhere different and continuously changing with time at every point, using measurements at discrete times and places (weather stations), is virtually impossible; in that the resulting number is highly sensitive to the chosen extrapolation method(s) needed to calculate (or rather approximate) the average.
Averaging problems aside, many tenuous approximations must be made in order to arrive at any of the reported final global average temperature curves. For example, air temperature thermometers on ocean-going ships have been positioned at increasing heights as the sizes of ships have increased in recent history. Since temperature decreases with increasing altitude, this altitude effect must be corrected. The estimates are uncertain and can change the calculated global warming by as much as 0.5 C, thereby removing the originally reported effect entirely.
Similarly, surface ocean temperatures were first measured by drawing water up to the ship decks in cloth buckets and later in wooden buckets. Such buckets allow heat exchange in different amounts, thereby changing the measured temperature. This must be corrected by various estimates of sizes and types of buckets. These estimates are uncertain and can again change the resulting final calculated global warming value by an amount comparable to the 0.5 C value. There are a dozen or so similar corrections that must be applied, each one able to significantly alter the outcome.
In wanting to go further back in time, the technical problems are magnified. For example, when one uses a temperature proxy, such as the most popular tree ring proxy, instead of a physical thermometer, one has the significant problem of calibrating the proxy. With tree rings from a given preferred species of tree, there are all kinds of unavoidable artefacts related to wood density, wood water content, wood petrifaction processes, season duration effects, forest fire effects, extra-temperature biotic stress effects (such as recurring insect infestations), etc. Each proxy has its own calibration and preservation problems that are not fully understood.
The reported temperature curves should therefore be seen as tentative suggestions that the authors hope will catalyze more study and debate, not reliable results that one should use in guiding management practice or in deducing actual planetary trends. In addition, the original temperature or proxy data is usually not available to other research scientists who could critically examine the data treatment methods; nor are the data treatment methods spelled out in enough detail. Instead, the same massaged data is reproduced from report to report rather than re-examined.
The most recent thermometer measurements have their own special problems, not the least of which is urban warming, due to urban sprawl, which locally affects weather station mean temperatures and wind patterns: Temperatures locally change because local surroundings change. Most weather monitoring stations are located, for example, near airports which, in turn, are near expanding cities.
As a general rule in science, if an effect is barely detectable, requires dubious data treatment methods, and is sensitive to those data treatment methods and to other approximations, then it is not worth arguing over or interpreting and should not be used in further deductions or extrapolations.
[…]
Daniel H says:
May 8, 2010 at 5:06 am
All of the pre-1959 CO2 data comes from the ice cores, in particular the greenland GISP project cores. The Vostok cores don’t close up fast enough (too little annual snowfall) to show recent years.
Phil M., May 8, 2010 at 12:42 pm:
After writing two carefully worded submissions to the EPA prior to their preposterous labeling of CO2 as a pollutant, I have zero respect for that organization or anyone in it. My input can be disregarded, but many esteemed scientists said the same thing. All were completely disregarded.
To the best of my knowledge, not one senior EPA official [or anyone else employed by the EPA, for that matter] has ever publicly disputed, or even questioned the bureaucracy’s scientifically untenable finding. Not one person in the entire organization had the courage to speak out.
The result is two-fold: first, the country is well on its way to passing a horrendously expensive and completely unnecessary Cap & Trade bill, based on the EPA’s scientifically bogus finding that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant.” And second, EPA employees will continue to ride the taxpayer gravy train, no matter how much their craven silence costs the country. They’ve got theirs, right?
As an apologist for the EPA and what it has become — an unscientific government propaganda agency — I’m sure you will be happy to pay for the increased cost of everything, and for the new taxes that will result — which will do exactly nothing about a beneficial and harmless minor trace gas, or the planet’s temperature, which is going to do what it’s going to do as always, and regardless of human activities.
‘Your tax dollars at work…’ feathering the nests of your kleptocrat pals. I think I need to take a shower now.
Phil M., you can call it “a synthesis of existing scientific research”, or whatever you want to, if it makes you feel better. Garbage is garbage no matter what you call it, and still stinks to high heaven.
Bruce Cobb says:
May 8, 2010 at 9:00 am
I noted that as well, Bruce, but as I said, my stomach couldn’t take any more. I found it ludicrous and disingenuous that they would use 2007 as a comparison year for ice … bad scientists, no cookies.
Jim Clarke says:
May 8, 2010 at 9:42 am
I was gonna mention that in the head post, but I figured we were in deep enough water already … the PDO is well known to affect the rainfall (particularly in the western US), and it went negative (cool) in about 1946 and positive (warm) in 1976-77.
Slioch says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm
OK, my bad. Replace “everything” with “almost everything”. Happy now?
Here’s a list of everything that has been blamed on human-caused global warming … so while you are correct that the IPCC didn’t blame all changes on humans, they certainly didn’t make that clear enough.
Ash fall record broken by Eyjafjallajokull : Al’sGW.
The TimesUK/MSM’s “Ash-free Spain” record falls: “40,000 years” …
“*As Spanish officials closed Barcelona and a string of smaller airports in the north of the country, there were warnings that airports in southern France may also soon be affected as the westerly airstream pushes the dust further into Europe.”
Climate or weather?
Scientists confounded.
…-
“May 7, 2010
Ash-free Spain could become an emergency flight hub
Spain has been spared falls of ash from Iceland’s volcanoes for much of the past 40,000 years, according to research that suggests the country could serve Europe as an emergency flight hub in the event of another eruption.
Investigations by scientists at Royal Holloway, the University of London and the University of Oxford have found that while sediments from ancient Icelandic eruptions are abundant in northern Europe, none are known from the Iberian peninsula.
The results, which were collected during research into climate history, suggest that the pattern of ash dispersal from last month’s eruption of Eyjafjallajokull, which did not affect Spanish airspace, is normal for Icelandic volcanoes.
This means that Spanish airports could be considered as emergency landing sites for northern European air traffic in the event of a similar event, such as an eruption of Katla, Eyjafjallajokull’s larger neighbour. ”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7118615.ece
…-
“*Icelandic volcano will disrupt more European flights over weekend”
“*As Spanish officials closed Barcelona and a string of smaller airports in the north of the country, there were warnings that airports in southern France may also soon be affected as the westerly airstream pushes the dust further into Europe.”
“Ash eruptions are ongoing and the area of potential ash contamination is expanding,” European air traffic control monitors Eurocontrol said in a statement.
In France the national weather service said dangerous concentrations of ash, expected to close Marseilles airport first, were rising to 20,000 feet. There were fears that the ash might not disperse before Wednesday’s opening of the Cannes film festival, when private jets throng Riviera airports. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7696861/Icelandic-volcano-will-disrupt-more-European-flights-over-weekend.html
“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.”
What a crock of shite: just HOW can they “check”? WHAT is the measure of “harmful”? What does “RISKY” mean?
Phil M. says:
May 8, 2010 at 1:09 pm
The EPA did NOT classify CO2 as a toxin. They determined that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 posed a danger to human health, via environmental change.
No, they did worse than that: They declared it a dangerous pollutant, putting it under the Clean Air Act.
They might have well said it was a dangerous toxin, as life on Earth is almost exclusively Carbon based and CO2 is part & parcel of the Food Chain.
And that declaration is being used as a Sword of Damocles to pass Cap&Trade, or else face the Grim Reaper Policy.
Net effect here, Phil, is to hold life hostage until the ransom is paid.
Some choice, such pleasant people.
Phil M. says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Willis,
Yes, I missed your distinction between a “study” and a synthesis report analysis decision support tool … so sue me.
As for calling this my “little hobby”, my work has been quoted in newspapers around the world, and I have a couple of peer-reviewed papers, and another which will be published next month, and another one in preparation, and thousands and thousands of people are influenced by and interested in what I write … not bad for a little hobby, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps you should give up your little hobby of making ad hominem attacks, they are immaterial to the question of whether my scientific claims are right or wrong.
Sure, although I already explained it above. I support the mission of the EPA, which is to fight against pollution. However, when they claim that CO2 is pollution, I think they’ve gone way, way off the rails. This is a political decision, not a scientific decision, which shows me that (once again) the EPA is not making decisions the way that they should, based on the science. And the synthesis report analysis decision support tool we are discussing is another example of that. It is pretending to be science, but it is just politics. For another example, notice how they have a section on deaths from excess heat, but no section on deaths from excess cold? That’s politics, not science.
I’m sure I could contact the authors … but that wasn’t my point. I actually expected (foolish me) that when they said the data was from a certain URL, that it would be found at that URL. When it is not there, it makes their synthesis report analysis decision support tool just that much less credible.
PS – did you ever find the data at that URL? Because you certainly assailed me when you thought I hadn’t noticed the “Local Data” link on the page, and although I invited you to tell us where the data was, I haven’t noticed you referencing it … maybe I missed that.
Mike Edwards says:
May 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Thanks, Mike, I’ve changed the head post to reflect that.