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
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.
Just because Excel will return 16 places to right of the decimal doesn’t mean all 16 should be taken into consideration.
The degree of granularity should be commensurate with logic and the application. Space flight deserves more significant digits than driving a car, for example.
A MOST astute set of remarks!
I do believe though, that the term you were looking for was: ‘Perspective.’
To humans, a grain of sand is insignificant, but to and ant, it would be a large rock.
However, inasmuch as accuracy has been achieved in perhaps a million-fold ways, I would not think to toss the seemingly extraneous, if only that such ‘extraneous’ quantities might be indicative of other things not readily understood or otherwise known at the moment.
THINK: Who knew —before their discovery— that gamma rays affected cloud formation?
Who knew that X-Rays existed before the invention of photographic plates?
Any good measurement tool is worthy of all the accuracy which might be obtained, because in the future there may be useful purposes for even the tiniest fractional measurement, when other things are to be assessed.
This is NOT to say that increased accuracy should ever be used to pervert. Rather, what it does mean is that increased accuracy is nothing more that just that: A better standard of measurement.
Sometimes, with increased accuracy you get better sensitivity, and with that sensitivity you get more than just accuracy for that which you’re measuring, i.e., you now have a way of measuring things which you didn’t know existed priorly.
In that vein, it is my considered opinion that the newer measurement devices are ‘seeing’ things not formerly seen otherwise.
Perhaps.
Regarding SST and Ocean-air temperatures, I’m reminded of an excellent article titled “What’s Wrong With the Surface Record” at the late great John L Daly site.
An email comment was sent to Mr Daly by a mariner named John Williams. Though a little lengthy for a comment post, well worth the read as it is an “eye witness account” so to speak.
Sir,
I am a navigator in the Merchant Navy who has been involved in making meteorological observations from British and Australian merchant ships for over 35 years. I am an interested observer of this whole “Global Warming” issue via print and internet pages such as yours.
It is clear to me that nobody could possibly constuct an historical record of oceanic air and sea temperatures to any kind of scientific standard of accuracy from ships’ meteorological and other log books.
The standard Met. Office issue stevenson screen (sometimes two) enclosed issue wet and dry bulb thermometers were (and are) hung on bridge wings with more thought given to the convenience of the observer than anything else. It was (and is) known that temperatures should be taken from thermometers hung to windward in clear air. Half a gale of wind from the starboard side with cold rain at 0200 is a powerfull reason not to open the starboard wheelhouse door for anything at all! Also, with a relative wind from astern, the temperature must be affected by heat from the engine room, a very powerful heat source, among others. Some men were (few are) very conscientious in shifting the screen to windward; others were (most are) not. In any event there was and can be no standard position relative to ship structure and heat sources such as is possible in a shore installation.
Even to pretend to read a thermometer to a precision of 0.1 on board ship is asking a very great deal under at least some circumstances. Personally, I would guess that more than 50 per cent of temperature observations as recorded in Met. logs are in error by more than 1 degree.
Wet bulb temperatures I suspect will be worse. The water was commonly taken from the bridge kettle filled from the ships ordinary fresh water tanks. I have spent hours scraping hard white residues from the bulbs of these thermometers when changing the wicks. It was productive of much bad language to find, at observation time, that the water reservoir had dried up. With time pressing, it is problematical whether enough time was left for the newly filled thermometer to reach the proper reading.
Everything on board ship is covered, more or less, with salt deposits. This must include the dry bulb thermometer. Salt is hygroscopic. Ergo, dry bulbs cannot have been completely dry. Does this mean that there could have been errors in dry bulb readings due to evaporation from the thermometers??
Sea water temperatures were taken from samples obtained by means of a Met Office issue rubber “bucket” which looked like a short (about 300mm x 70mm dia.) length of very heavy duty rubber hose with a (I think) wooden plug in the bottom and a metal strop on top to take a length of line. Some had thermometers permanently fitted in a guide set in the bucket so that they couldn’t be removed. The breakage rate was considerable and any handy thermometer was used when this happened. Later buckets were not so fitted, the thermometer was removed while taking the water sample.
The bucket was left on deck or hung up where it had last been used. It adjusted to ambient temperature. In sunlight in the tropics it could be bloody hot. It was thrown over the side and allowed to trail astern. How far aft it went depended on the ship’s draft and the length of the line but any sample must have been contaminated by heat from boundary layer friction from the ship’s passage and heat from the engine room. Where exactly in the water body the sample was taken from is not possible to say. Some men just threw the whole lot over, in which case the bucket sunk below the surface to some extent, while others paid out the line slowly and the bucket just skimmed and bounced along the surface. How long it was left there depended on the man, the weather and how much time pressure the man was under. (Call from Radio Officer :”You’d better hurry up, I’m off watch in five minutes…..”)
Sea temperatures now are taken from engine cooling water intakes which is why in modern ships the Met. Office doesn’t get sea water temperatures at night since engine rooms are unmanned at night. Engine rooms can be very hot places and the sensors are set in steel pipework at some distance from the ship’s side. The draft of the ship changes and the ship rolls and pitches. Temperatures are taken from VDU screens calibrated to whole degrees. How accurate they are and how often they are calibrated I do not know. I suspect not very and not very often since a degree or two error is not of concern from an engineering point of view
All in all, I would not place too much weight on Met. information from ships being of the standard of accuracy that seems to be required.
John Williams.
Some more of interest from J L Daly
A Hole in the Bucket (dear Liza dear Liza)
As to sea surface temperatures (SST), this data is even more fragmentary than the air temperature readings. Prior to around 1940, SST was collected by throwing buckets over the side of a ship, hoisting it on deck and dipping a thermometer in it.
*How deep is the bucket dropped into the water? (SST varies with depth)
*How long does it take to hoist the bucket up to the deck? (the water is cooling while it is hoisted)
*Is the deck on which the bucket sits hot under the sun? (If so, the bucket water will heat)
*Or is the deck cool from sea splash and wind breeze? (If so, the water will cool)
*Is the bucket made of canvas, wood, or metal? (this affects evaporation and heat
transfer rates)
*Is the thermometer dipped in immediately, or is there some delay? (time delay equals cooling or heating)
*Is the bucket left in the sun, or in the shade? (also affects heating/cooling rate)
*How long is the thermometer left in the bucket? (as the water cools or heats while
waiting for the thermometer to settle)
*How carefully is the thermometer read? (usually by a 17-year-old cadet).
Get the idea?
I have a “chicken coop monitor”, his name is Vinnie (as in Diesel). He is the biggest baddest rooster this side of nowhere.
Day before yesterday he took exception at me picking up one of his ladies. It took me 15 minutes of boot to claw combat to beat him off.
I have scratched legs and belly, the mongrel Vinnie is fine. 🙂 (I do love him, he does his job extra well, good luck to any fox)
899 says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm
I have no problem with improvements in metrology per se. Only with the use to which they may be put (or perverted, as you say ). Far too often the increased capability is used to justify things such as trade barriers, and so on. We see examples of this in dealings with Asian nations.
With respect to weather/climate, the arguments seem to revolve around insignificant differences in the 4th or 5th decimal place in order to establish some moral or political supremacy of one or the other point of view. This kind of behavior does nothing to advance the science.
#
#
John Wright says:
September 14, 2010 at 8:03 am
@ur momisugly Alexander K:
September 14, 2010 at 6:13 am
It’s like the way they used to weigh a pig in Maine. They tied the pig to the end of a plank, on which they’d previously found the middle point, put that over a log and piled stones on the other end until the two masses balanced.
Then they guessed the weight of the stones.
______________________________________________________
Given the pig weighed between 200 and 700 lbs and the stones (not boulders) weighed between twenty and fifty pounds. It was actually not as bad method a method as you might imagine, especially if the same stones were used over and over again. You can tell if the pig gained weight or weighs more than another pig easily. You can also tell if the pig is at market weight.
I can guess the weight of a child within +/- 5 pounds by picking him up thanks to routinely hefting fifty pound grain sacks. (Yes the kid was weighed on a scale afterwards) So I imagine any farmer can do the same.
Here is Walter’s way of weighing a pig http://flashweb.com/blog/2006/01/how-to-weigh-a-pig-with-a-string.html
Philip Thomas says:
September 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Tom Fuller says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:57 am
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.
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
______________________________________________________
Seems Mr. Fuller played fast and loose with the truth so he could get his message (read propaganda) out to a large number of skeptics and fence sitters. Luckily people here at WUWT at sharp and spotted the spin.
Thank you Philip Thomas
Simple: precision is used to create the illusion of accuracy.
Accuracy is attained and proven ONLY by frequent careful checks against a known and agreed and reliable standard. And if that is unavailable, so is accuracy.
Thomas Fuller – You are so right! It is a common mantra that I have stated many times. The “records” of today are due to the ease and flood of information we have with technology – that did not exist just decades ago.
If you are plotting the winning streak of your favorite football team, using the last 2 decades is more than adequate to see a trend. For your team, that trend might encompass 20% to perhaps 50% of their existance. However when you are dealing with something that has been around billions of years – or even trends that take tens of thousands of years to fully cycle, 20, 30 or even 40 years is worthless for trending.
That has always been my problem with Mann. That he was later proved to be a fraud is only natural given the fact he has no quality data to go on.