Guest post by Thomas Fuller
There would be no global warming without new technology. And that’s not because new technology uses so much energy.
It’s because new technology has allowed us to measure new phenomena, and old phenomena with radically more powerful tools.
Mike Smith gives us an example in his book ‘Warnings’, a great story about how technology addressed the warning system for U.S. tornadoes (and which is advertised here on the right hand column).
He notes that many tornadoes that are called in to reporting centers today would never have been noticed before, thanks to a growing American population and the ubiquity of mobile telephones. So although it may look like we have more tornadoes than in the past, it’s just more and better measurements.
The same is more or less true of hurricanes. Before satellite coverage began in 1969, we really didn’t know exactly how many hurricanes actually happened in a given year, nor how strong they were. If they didn’t make landfall, they would only be catalogued if planes noticed and reported them, and they would only be measured if specially equipped planes basically flew through them and charted their strength. Some have tried to estimate hurricanes from previous eras (and Judith Curry is talking about the subject on her brand new weblog), but different scientists have come up with different answers.
Funnily enough, the answer that indicates hurricanes are getting stronger got published in the IPCC, while the answer that contradicted it resulted in the resignation of its author from the IPCC. Time will tell.
The phenomenon is certainly also true of measurements of ice extent, volume and area, which would not be possible without satellite imagery. Without satellites, we would be blissfully ignorant of what’s going on there, or at least in the same condition of partial ignorance that led the New York Times to predict global warming or a new ice age several times in the 19th and early 20th Century. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose…
New technology has had a radical effect on the time series of measurements made for extended periods before the technology was adopted. Sailors used to measure sea surface temperatures using a thermometer in a bucket lowered into the sea. When Argos buoys began providing a network of more accurate measurements, there was a break in the timeline.
When surface stations converted to electronic thermocouples on a short leash, the adjustments required caused another break in the data series. (I guess readers here might know something about that already.) Scientists have worked hard to make adjustments to correct for the new sources of data, but the breaks are still pretty noticeable.
The sensible thing would be to give the new technologies time to develop an audited series of measurements long enough to determine trends, rather than grafting new data on top of older, less reliable series. But there are two objections to this: First, who’s to say another new measurement technology won’t come along and replace our brand new toys and resetting the clock to zero? Second, and of more concern, there is a whole scientific establishment out there saying we don’t have time to wait for a pristine data set. Some say we’ve already waited too long, others say that if we start today (and they really mean today), we just might avoid climate disaster.
And if you start to muse on the remarkable coincidence that warming apparently started at the same time as we got all this new-fangled technology, why that makes you a flat-earth denialist. Or something.
As it happens, while serving in the U.S. Navy I took sea surface temperatures with a thermometer in a bucket. There were not many detailed instructions involved. Should I have done it on the sunny side or the shady side? Nearer the pointy end of the ship (that’s technical talk) or the flat back end? How long was I supposed to leave the thermometer in the water?
I wouldn’t want to make momentous decisions based on the quality of data I retrieved from that thermometer, which wasn’t calibrated–I think the U.S.N. stock number was like 22, or some other low number indicating great antiquity. I much prefer what comes out of Argos.
But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfulleThe Joy of Innovation Thomas Fuller
There would be no global warming without new technology. And that’s not because new technology uses so much energy.
It’s because new technology has allowed us to measure new phenomena, and old phenomena with radically more powerful tools.
Mike Smith gives us an example in his book ‘Warnings’, a great story about how technology addressed the warning system for U.S. tornadoes (and which is advertised here on the right hand column). He notes that many tornadoes that are called in to reporting centers today would never have been noticed before, thanks to a growing American population and the ubiquity of mobile telephones. So although it may look like we have more tornadoes than in the past, it’s just more and better measurements.
The same is more or less true of hurricanes. Before satellite coverage began in 1969, we really didn’t know exactly how many hurricanes actually happened in a given year, nor how strong they were. If they didn’t make landfall, they would only be catalogued if planes noticed and reported them, and they would only be measured if specially equipped planes basically flew through them and charted their strength. Some have tried to estimate hurricanes from previous eras (and Judith Curry is talking about the subject on her brand new weblog), but different scientists have come up with different answers. Funnily enough, the answer that indicates hurricanes are getting stronger got published in the IPCC, while the answer that contradicted it resulted in the resignation of its author from the IPCC. Time will tell.
The phenomenon is certainly also true of measurements of ice extent, volume and area, which would not be possible without satellite imagery. Without satellites, we would be blissfully ignorant of what’s going on there, or at least in the same condition of partial ignorance that led the New York Times to predict global warming or a new ice age several times in the 19th and early 20th Century. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose…
New technology has had a radical effect on the time series of measurements made for extended periods before the technology was adopted. Sailors used to measure sea surface temperatures using a thermometer in a bucket lowered into the sea. When Argos buoys began providing a network of more accurate measurements, there was a break in the timeline. When surface stations converted to electronic thermocouples on a short leash, the adjustments required caused another break in the data series. (I guess readers here might know something about that already.) Scientists have worked hard to make adjustments to correct for the new sources of data, but the breaks are still pretty noticeable.
The sensible thing would be to give the new technologies time to develop an audited series of measurements long enough to determine trends, rather than grafting new data on top of older, less reliable series. But there are two objections to this: First, who’s to say another new measurement technology won’t come along and replace our brand new toys and resetting the clock to zero? Second, and of more concern, there is a whole scientific establishment out there saying we don’t have time to wait for a pristine data set. Some say we’ve already waited too long, others say that if we start today (and they really mean today), we just might avoid climate disaster.
And if you start to muse on the remarkable coincidence that warming apparently started at the same time as we got all this new-fangled technology, why that makes you a flat-earth denialist. Or something.
As it happens, while serving in the U.S. Navy I took sea surface temperatures with a thermometer in a bucket. There were not many detailed instructions involved. Should I have done it on the sunny side or the shady side? Nearer the pointy end of the ship (that’s technical talk) or the flat back end? How long was I supposed to leave the thermometer in the water?
I wouldn’t want to make momentous decisions based on the quality of data I retrieved from that thermometer, which wasn’t calibrated–I think the U.S.N. stock number was like 22, or some other low number indicating great antiquity. I much prefer what comes out of Argos.
But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
r
What if tree ring data is right and therometer readings are wrong or at least different.
pointman says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:26 am
“Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries”
A review of the Climategate investigations. Indeed, damning stuff.
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
Pointman
You would have thought WUWT would have run with this.
[Reply: Post to Tips & Notes so Anthony sees it. ~dbs, Mod.]
This post is strangely like my college chemistry term paper on the ozone hole. One point I made was that Dobson in 1956 when he first noted the hole had vastly different equipment than the 1990’s. I could find no where that anyone adjusted the modern equipment down to the precision of Dobson’s to see if in fact the hole had gotten larger or we were just measuring it better.
“But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.”
Oye! I heard them polar caps were melting on Mars or something! And it was because of the rising CO2..
Do you WUWT people know where this rumor comes from?
I know of two others who have already posted it to Tips & Notes. It is a huge story. Do you really expect me to believe that WUWT was not aware of this?
Mod,
Duly noted and reposted therein. That “Tips” thread need breaking up. It’s too long.
Pointman
REPLY: Yeah, due for a cleaning – Anthony
“Grumbler says:
September 14, 2010 at 4:58 am
It’s not too difficult to measure hurricanes by proxy. A paleoclimatologist was doing a good job in the Florida swamps. He took core samples and you could clearly see beach sand [dropped by the hurricanes] at regular intervals. Better than tree rings as aproxy for temperature as there was only one variable.
cheers David”
There are always “other variables”. How about a “storm surge” created by a tsunami? But then I must admit to NOT being a paleoclimatologist and perhaps the results of such a surge might look different, even a million years later. How about a surge caused by an impact? I just ran out of ideas.
Thomas Fuller said
“Some have tried to estimate hurricanes from previous eras (and Judith Curry is talking about the subject on her brand new weblog), but different scientists have come up with different answers.”
Ok I admit it, it was me that brought it up 🙂
There is no doubt there were numerous Hurricanes/violent storms way before the supposed doubling from 1970. Interestingly, many seem to be from the LIA so perhaps the water warmth is not the main factor.
I suspect the official recording of more and stronger hurricanes is also due to the very effect you are mentioning here, (nice article) that there are more people around to observe in the first place, and they have the technology available to report them.
Tonyb
As others have noted, medicine is replete with examples of better detection skewing results or what may be accurately inferred from them. Childhood asthma is a good example. Thirty years ago this diagnosis was not made with anything like the frequency it is made today. This is fodder for activists who maintain coal burning power plants are the reason we’re seeing such a sharp uptick in the incidence of childhood asthma. This, of course, is nonsense. Physicians simply have developed better diagnostic acumen and the criteria for what defines “childhood asthma” is more precisely characterized.
A couple of other biggies – depression and diabetes. The diagnostic criteria for both of these disease states are always in flux. Anybody can diagnose an obvious case, it’s those cases which meet the “new definition” that skew the data. Thirty years a person who was despondent over the loss of a loved one wouldn’t have been diagnosed with depression. Today they would…and they would be treated with antidepressants. The threshold for a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes has been lowered to the point where many patients experience no symptoms. This increases the incidence numbers and causes self-proclaimed “experts” to conclude that high carbohydrate diets cause diabetes. Actually no such cause and effect has been conclusively established. High carbohydrate diets exacerbate a pre-existing condition of Type 2 DM.
Allow me to propose another theory (also unproven). Before the development of commercial insulin, patients with Type 1 diabetes died relatively quickly (and usually quite young). The same was true for older patients who developed severe cases of Type 2 diabetes. Today we manage these disease states with medications unheard of 100 years ago. Is it not possible that by saving these patients we have allowed the gene associated with diabetes to propagate in the population whereby a century ago much of it would have died out? Personally I believe this theory may have some validity in certain populations (e.g. Navajo)
But cause and effect has still not been established. In my view this is the great weakness of climate science. Normal human body temperature can easily vary +/- 0.2 deg C and no one gets excited. But measure a 0.2 deg C change in mean global temperature and people become hysterical. We’re pretty sure we’re warmer now than we were 200 years ago, but how in the world can you attribute any of this to CO2? Because you have a theory, right. I’ve got my own theory about diabetes and it’s just as specious as the AGW/CO2 theory.
That’s actually:
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…
In either form, however, it is surely applicable to the crypto-AGW message of these interminable posts of yours (and not very ‘crypto’ at that). Perhaps you shoud start a ‘WUWTF’ site to do this. Not only could you dilute and slant the message of reality, but you could offer indulgences and absolution to the guilty parties in a much more overt fashion.
It’s getting decidedly ‘warm and spinny’ around here of late.
/dr.bill
We see the same thing in crime statistics. If there is a statistical trend of increasing sex crimes, that must be understood in the context of social changes that destigmatize reporting that one has been so victimized. Increased reporting does not necessarily indicate increased incidence.
“There would be no global warming without new technology.”
Here we go again – start the piece with a non-factual assumption stated as fact… Significant global warming isn’t happening whether you measure temperature with thermistors or thermometers. There is no global warming based on the raw temperature records available.
The ‘warming’ has come from incorrect and inappropriate processing of the data however it was measured. We don’t even need new technology i.e computers to do bad data processing. We can do bad data processing with an abacus! IF we have a mind to do so…
When I served on weather reporting vessels, the wheelhouse phoned the engine room at the appropriate time and asked for the sea temperature, which was taken from a thermometer at the engine cooling water intake.
In ballast this might have been about 15 feet below the surface and when loaded maybe 30 feet.
But so far as I remember there was no place in the WX log sheet to indicate how far below the surface the reading was taken from.
Dr. Bill, don’t take my opinions as representative of the site as a whole. I’m an outlier, more or less. Anthony is just kind enough to give the Lukewarmers a little space on his blog once a day.
But hey–fire away! If I’m wrong, I have no problem admitting it. And if my point of view is really just annoying you (which I can understand–I’m not putting up charts and graphs or citing papers to back me up, mostly because I don’t think much of the conflict is really about the science at the end of the day), click through to the next post. Bishop Hill has quite clearly pointed out the structural defects in the various inquiries into Climategate.
Long time ago, when there were tube radios, every time you put the power off, there was a sudden surge of volume, as if the radio were giving off its last exhalation, thus Global Warming will abandon us suddenly but not before crying its last cry aloud.
If you say you are a lukewarmer, could you please tell Anthony; he has you down as a skeptic in the sidebar.
REPLY: Thanks for the reminder. Mr. Fuller said he was a skeptic, and is now a Lukewarmer. So I’ll make the change. – Anthony
“The problem is that we are obsessed with granularity.”
Ahhh, the digital age. Once everyone had digital watches, it was no longer a little before 6:00, it was 5:58. It wasn’t about quarter after 4, it was 4:18. And greater precision gave the illusion of greater accuracy. Just because the watch said it was 4:18 didn’t mean it was really 4:18.
I’ve been a regular reader of WUWT since the NorCal days, and have a good idea of what is representative of the site. You are correct in your self-portrayal as an outlier. Given that you seem to be posting more often than Anthony, however, I wouldn’t want casual visitors to take this “all Fuller all the time BS” too seriously. I would also, with respect, suggest that Anthony might exercise more discretion in his choice of chicken coop monitors while he’s occupied with his personal difficulties.
/dr.bill
Curiousgeorge says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:06 am
The problem is that we are obsessed with granularity. With a big enough microscope, everything becomes significant. Take probability calculations for example – it’s totally ridiculous to even talk about a probability out beyond 2 digits, yet many will claim a prob = .955 is “more precise” than prob = .95. In fact, in most practical applications there is no reason (and no logical justification ) to go beyond a single digit.
So true. There are way too many people around, many doing research, who ovbiously believe that 2+2 = 4.00
dr. bill,
What’s a “chicken coop monitor”?
Concerning paleo-hurrican measurements: None of them address the TS, depressios, and hurricans that don’t impact land at all, yet look at all the time that the various news organizations spend on just those things.
Smokey asked:
“dr. bill,
What’s a ‘chicken coop monitor’?”
I’m guessing it’s a bit like a ‘milk monitor’, but with less milk and more chicken poop 😉
John T says:
September 14, 2010 at 11:25 am
“The problem is that we are obsessed with granularity.”
Ahhh, the digital age. Once everyone had digital watches, it was no longer a little before 6:00, it was 5:58. It wasn’t about quarter after 4, it was 4:18. And greater precision gave the illusion of greater accuracy. Just because the watch said it was 4:18 didn’t mean it was really 4:18.
Well, I reckon I’m one of the oddballs. I don’t wear a watch at all, let alone a digital one. I’m perfectly comfy with knowing whether the Sun is up or not. 🙂
Smokey
Someone entrusted look after the chicken coop whilst the owner is away?
Tonyb
Hi Smokey,
Sorry for the delay. This job thing keeps interfering with my recreation. 🙁
With regards to “chicken coop monitors”, in the present context I was thinking of something like Vulpes vulpes, Urocyon cinereoargenteus, Alopex lagopus, etc, depending largely on hair colour as a first approximation. In other words, members of the fox family, who are known to cause much damage when not adequately supervised and particularly if possessed of sufficient cleverness.
Mr. Fuller appears to have a full measure of this quality. He is very adroit at starting with loose definitions, unstated premises, and then by a series of smooth non sequitur segues, arriving at unwarranted conclusions.
I’ve grown a bit weary of it.
/dr.bill