The "Not Evil, Just Romm", 2% solution

ERRATA: I made a mistake regarding the 2% figure, I misheard what was being presented during my visit with the BEST team at Berkeley. As many of you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was entirely verbal with some printed graphs. Based on the confidentiality I agreed to, I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan station analysis graphs that they showed me.

I was in touch with Dr. Richard Muller on 3/28/2011 who graciously pointed out my misinterpretation. I regret the error, and thus issue this correction about the 2% figure being truly a random sample, and not just stations in the Japan test presentation shown to me.

I am told of another correction, and that is that Dr. Caldeira was shown a paper they are working on related paper on oceans, and that contained the preliminary 2% graph from the surface analysis, but was not the full surface analysis paper, which hasn’t yet been written.

According to Dr. Muller, that 2% test run does not contain all the bias corrections they plan to apply for station moves, discontinuous records, UHI and other station effects. I look forward to seeing the data when those are applied to the full dataset.

This episode where Mr. Romm gets an email from Dr. Caldeira and creates a “finding” illustrates the danger in rushing to judgment on snippets of preliminary results, and as  BEST says: “The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.”

I still believe that BEST represents a very good effort, and that all parties on both sides of the debate should look at it carefully when it is finally released, and avail themselves to the data and code that is promised to allow for replication.

– Anthony Watts

Last week Willis told you about how Joe Romm at Climate Progress botched a blog post so bad, Joe had not only to fix his own post by removing false claims about population trends, so did the paper’s authors. Then, rather than simply admit a mistake and move on, he spun it into some sort of twirling victory dance, bizarrely claiming that because Willis put up a chart of CO2 rates, “he” got us to admit that CO2 rates were increasing because Willis chose it as a reference. Heh, well if that floats your boat, you go Joe. WUWT has quite a history in discussing CO2 with graphs, rates, and guest essays, no news there.

This week, it’s the old pea and thimble trick combined with desperation and some silly claim of “exclusive”, like some cheap MSM news labeling graphic where they’ve caught some sex poodle on tape. After earlier writing a piece condemning the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) he’s now put up his interpretation of an email from scientist Ken Caldiera who said:

I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

The only problem is this: there’s no “draft paper” yet, there’s nothing that is “submission ready”, not even close. It hasn’t been written. In fact, BEST hasn’t even done a full global analysis yet. How do I know this? It’s simple; I’ve visited the team and asked them directly, something Romm has not done.

Caldeira was simply looking at the same set of data (some preliminary charts and graphs that Richard Muller carries around with him in a file folder), that BEST has been showing to several people, including me. The only difference is that people like myself, Steven Mosher, and his friend Zeke Hausfather who visited BEST with him, haven’t run off the rails to make early and unsubstantiated claims about it “confirming” anything yet. And now, Romm’s adding to his original blogpost, is backpedaling, while at the same time picking a fight with Steven Mosher for notifying him on the issue in comments. It is sad, comical, and oh-so-typical of the sort of thing we’ve come to expect at Climate Progress. Romm simply got excited and jumped the shark. He’s not doing himself any favors with this sort of thing.

Here’s the Initial Findings statement from BEST, written by lead scientist Robert Rhode (of globalwarmingart.com) which pretty much mirrors what Caldeira is saying:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.

A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc.

The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.

That 2% subset they refer to is some weather stations in Japan. They chose Japan because it made for a compact insular test case for the code, combining rural, urban, and airport stations under one organization’s output to keep it simple. Like Ken Caldeira, I’ve seen that preliminary 2% output. I’ve also seen a lot of other things, some things Caldieira hasn’t seen that the BEST team has shared with me. So has Zeke and Mosher, but neither they nor I are screaming “exclusive” and jumping to conclusions like Romm is doing over Caldeira’s general statement on that 2% sample run to test the code.

What’s even funnier is that whenever we mention USHCN trends for USA stations, AGW proponents are quick to point out that the USA has only about 6% of the land surface area of the Earth (USA: 9,629,091 km2, Earth: 148,940,000 km2 source), but they are now willing to go with the weather station data from 377,930 square kilometers of Japan’s land area which is 0.25% of the Earth’s surface area,  as enough for “confirmation” of a global trend.

In response to this latest yapping from Romm, BEST has also now updated their FAQs page here, and says this:

NEW – What do your results show?

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has not yet done the analysis of the full data set with the corrections to produce a global surface temperature trend. We are first analyzing a small subset of data (2%) to check our programs and statistical methods and make sure that they are functioning effectively. We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias.

A preliminary analysis of 2% of the Berkeley Earth dataset shows a global temperature trend that goes up and down with global cycles, and does so broadly in sync with the temperature records from other groups such as NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU. However, the preliminary analysis includes only a very small subset (2%) of randomly chosen data, and does not include any method for correcting for biases such as the urban heat island effect, the time of observation bias, etc. The Berkeley Earth team feels very strongly that no conclusions can yet be drawn from this preliminary analysis.

Compare Romm’s “exclusive” to Zeke’s writeup over at Lucia’s last week which preceded Romm’s. Zeke’s essay has firsthand accounts, is a lot easier to read, and doesn’t need gratuitous exclamation points. For those who don’t know him, Zeke Hausfather is very much in the warming camp, but he’s also a reasonable person. Zeke wrote about a technique that I agreed to keep in confidence until they had a paper accepted for publication or chose to announce it on their own, but it may have been just a slip or communications misunderstanding:

Their major innovation, in addition to those that overlap the work of other bloggers, is to treat inhomogenities as the start of separate records. The least squares method of record combination has the major benefit of allowing relatively short records to be combined together without introducing biases. This means that instead of trying to artificially correct inhomogenities detected by comparing individual stations to their neighbors, they can simply treat these as break points, where subsequent measurements from the same site are treated as a separate record and are optimally fit to the larger series using the LSM approach.

The issue hasn’t been the slight warming over the past century, we’ve always conceded that there is some. The issue has always been magnitude, uncertainties, and cause. With the BEST project, we’ll get closer to the ground truth of magnitude and uncertainties, but it will say nothing about the cause, except perhaps to help define the contributions of UHI and station siting.

I’ll repeat what I said earlier about BEST:

And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them] because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team…

My gut feeling? The possibility that we may get the elusive “grand unified temperature” for the planet is higher than ever before. Let’s give it a chance.

More science, less barking.

I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brian H

Loud incompetence is aggravating to be up against, but it sure presents fat targets, doesn’t it?

Jeff B.

The possibility that we may get the elusive “grand unified temperature” for the planet is higher than ever before.
What is the percentage of the earth’s surface area covered by these data sets? Is there really near enough to get a grand unified temperature? Over land? Possibly with satellites? Seems like a qualified unification.

charles nelson

I recommend Watts Up With That to all my friends and aquaintances as well as people
I argue with.
The rigorous way this site presents un-impeachable, data from impeccable sources is a credit to you…as is the level of actual scientific knowledge that abounds in your comments section.
‘We’ have nothing to fear from the truth, our citadel is not built on foundations of sand.

Open mouth insert foot.
Of course with them it doesn’t matter. SkS and the sites like it will jump on his comments as the end all and be all of the BEST data. It won’t matter if it is accurate or not, because it might be used by skeptics. That is enough to taint it.
The CRU and GHCN (NCDC) sets are so bad that they barely show the signal of Krakatoa and a greatly reduced global signal from Pinatubo. How can data that doesn’t register those events properly be sensitive enough to detect global warming (even if it was real)?
The conundrum is they can’t, the satellite data is sensitive enough to detect it, but it isn’t showing what they need it to. They are really getting into a tight spot that will get ever more precarious over the next decade.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/03/detecting-the-global-warming-temperature-signal/

Orkneygal

I don’t have a copy of my original posting over at Climate Non-Progress, but it was something like this-
“Is Ken Caldiera a reviewer of the paper and thereby violating his pledge to secrecy? Or did he get a hacked copy of the paper?”
That post got “disappeared” faster than an Argentine Union Leader during the Guerra Sucia.
A toned down version of the same got through. Notice JR’s curious response. Effectively, he’s claiming the draft paper exists.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/#comment-332978

MikeN

Yea, JR attacked the group, so if the numbers come out bad, he can say he warned us, and if they come out good, well this is the result.

LabMunkey

this:
“We are correcting our programs and methods while still “blind” to the results so that there is less chance of inadvertently introducing a bias”
Is very encouraging. Nice to see some actual scientific/QC methodolgoy being used for once.
Good luck chaps i look forward to your results. I hope you’ll cover them here Anthony regardless of the outcome (a genuine question- not an implied slight).
REPLY:WUWT will have coverage, no matter what the result. We are watching science being done – Anthony

Thanks Anthony,
I tried to straighten Romm out but I got blocked from commenting after my initial comment.

Alexander K

Joe Romm only opens his mouth to change feet theae days, it seems. He tells the silliest of stories then is forced to back down and retract. Doing the same thing time after time without learning from the experience tells me that he is an empty vessel indeed.

matt

I have been eagerly awaiting an independent global temperature analysis for a long time, especially since it became clear how close CRU is to the US. Lets hope the Berkley data set can remain free from manipulation, that accurately adjusts for UHI (even if that means urban stations get rejected from the data set, possibly, the only true adjustment possible) and that it results in accurate information on which we can all start to estimate the true impact of CO2.
Fingers crossed…

Hugh Whalen

Any idea when the analysis will be finished and the results will be available?

hey he’s actually letting comments through.
Go figure. Anyways, maybe it all boils down to a misunderstanding about what
is meant by “draft paper”.
Maybe something direct from BEST would be best

Willis Eschenbach

steven mosher says:
March 22, 2011 at 1:29 am

Thanks Anthony,
I tried to straighten Romm out but I got blocked from commenting after my initial comment.

Shocking, I tell you, shocking.
Romm is a classic. After my post caused him to rewrite his post, and to question the authors (as he should have done at the beginning), and to pull one of the author’s conclusions from his list of what they had shown, he writes a snarky comment on how I was just nitpicking about a footnote, viz:

There’s also a dumb mathematical error in a footnote that is transparently at odds with the data (including the data in the study), which the anti-science crowd (aka WattsUpWithThat — they get upset if you don’t mention them by name) has naturally pounced on. It isn’t germane to the study’s main conclusions.

It was so dumb, and so transparently at odds with the data, that Joe swallowed it whole …
He also says:

UPDATE: I had a good conversation with the co-author Didier Sornette. This was a draft analysis: They made a numerical mistake in one of the footnotes and used some inapt wording in a couple of places, none of which changes the main conclusion about CO2 concentrations.

Now, hang on. First, the footnote. When they say that the population growth rate is constant, and that the rate is 1.8%, and use that 1.8% to correctly calculate population doubling time, and make specific note of the fact that they disagree with the standard population estimates, that’s not a “numerical mistake”. That is a strong claim that they are right, and the rest of the world is wrong.
Thats a series of erroneous claims so laughable that it made me snort coffee, and it is specifically claimed to be true despite disagreeing with the UN, FAO, World Bank, etc.
Second, that footnote is not the only point where the claim of constant population growth is made. For example, they say in their conclusion

The human population is still growing at an exponential rate and there is no sign in the data that the growth rate is decreasing.

So it’s not just the footnote, it’s the whole paper making that cockamamie claim. But I digress. This whole thing with BEST is classic Joe, first make it up, then put the bus in reverse and start backing away from his own detailed fantasies.
Ah, well. At least the BEST project is up and running, and we will likely get an honest appraisal from the team there. I find it all incredibly encouraging no matter how it comes out. I suspect that the answer may not be that different globally, but may vary greatly in certain regions from our current numbers.
But at least, we can get some numbers that have a backstory and transparent transformations and metadata and all of the stuff that the current attempts at global temperature averages don’t have.
So, like Anthony, I say we are seeing science being done, and we’ll just have to wait and see what turns up.
w.

Girma

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

1) We are not “climate science deniers”. We are man-made global warming deniers.
2) Most of us accept global warming.
3) Most of us accept the data; though, there is some evidence for data adjustment.
My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

http://bit.ly/8SPNry
4) One of our main argument is that the global mean temperature is cyclic with an overall global warming of only 0.06 deg C per decade.
Here is the overall warming of 0.06 deg C per decade.
http://bit.ly/euIaVz
Here is what is left from the global mean temperature anomaly after removing (detrending) the overall warming of 0.06 deg C per decade.
http://bit.ly/ePQnJj
This chart clearly shows the detrended data is cyclic. As a result, the longterm global warming is only 0.06 deg C per decade.
As the global mean temperature has a cyclic component, for the IPCC to report the global warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade during the warming cyclic to continue into the future, without subtracting the cyclic warming component is incorrect.
IPCC:
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

http://bit.ly/caEC9b
IPCC has exaggerated the global warming rate by a factor of about 3 (=0.2/0.06)!

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

But am I alone in thinking that you shouldn’t give Mr Romm any publicity? I’ve read his blog, and I was concerned for his mind, to be honest.

Gareth

Joe Romm said: “Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. ”
The way he has worded that makes me wonder; In what ways does Joe see prior analyses as being incorrect?

Sceptical me

While appreciating enthusiasm in a subject normally so tenacious of doom and gloom, to commit to the acceptance any results which clearly assume these climate models contain all factors involved in producing our climate, appears unwise.
Maybe its my own limited understanding, but from reading WUWT and other excellent blogs, the science establishment appear to be far from comprehending all the main drivers affecting our climate, so the results from the best intended climate models, will not at this stage, create a robust theoretical picture.
I appreciate this reads like a wretched ‘get out clause’, but that was not my intention.

My concern with BEST is not the methodology but the data behind it. Anthony’s study of US stations has shown how poor a lot of the data from an advanced country can be. I have worked with Met data in over 40 countries and all continents except Antarctic. I can assure you that in many countries the situation is worse than the US.
As an example, I once was part of a review team of the multi-country project in West Africa. It was discovered in the 1980s that, anomalously, while humidity appeared to be increasing precipitation was falling. The explanation was that observers were not filling the water bottle for the wet bulb thermometer giving apparently very high relative humidity values.
Until all stations used for global temperature estimates are visited, photographed from all directions and accurately located to within a few metres we will no have a definitive record.

Jimmy Haigh

Romm has – as they say – “issues”…

Let us give Joe Romm some credit! how ever wrong and hysterical he gets.
At least he pust his own name to what he writes….. and we can then respond…
I’m thinking about writing an article about an influential blog that writes critically about WUWT (and others) and in my opinion misrepresents WUWT, yet the writer remains anonymous and the articles are tweeted to the worlds media and followed by those with influence.
How to judge an article, is the author, impartial, activist, axe to grind, scientifically litterate? who knows if the author is anonymous.
I have made a constructive criticism to the blog, that it would be in their own interests that their authors, stand by their work, as Joe Romm does..
In their own interests at least, because what reputable journalist/editor would use their resource, when the author is unknown.
Shub’s thoughts…
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/thanks-realclimate/

bigcitylib

Muller has already confirmed the draft conclusions. Are you saying that the project head is misinterpreting his own data. Come to think of it, you must think project funder Caldiera is misinterpreting the data too. Or do you have any idea what you are trying to say?
Muller: “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

Mycroft

You can lead a horse to water,but you can’t make it drink.In Romms case you could lead him to an advancing glacier and he’d still refuse to accept it, ingnorance is no excuse.One must think of Romm as a latter day Matthew Harrison Brady the fundamentalist preacher from the film “Inherit the Wind” and maybe Anthony as Henry Drummond.

Let us give Joe Romm some credit! how ever wrong and hysterical he gets.
At least he puts his own name to what he writes (as does Anthony, et al) ….. and we can then respond…
I’m thinking about writing an article about an influential blog that writes critically about WUWT (and others) and in my opinion misrepresents WUWT, yet the writer remains anonymous and the articles are tweeted to the worlds media and followed by those with influence.
How to judge an article, is the author, impartial, activist, axe to grind, scientifically litterate? who knows if the author is anonymous.
I have made a constructive criticism to the blog, that it would be in their own interests that their authors, stand by their work, as Joe Romm does..
so far silence.
I WOULD like to write that they responded to constructive criticism….
Maybe they cannot, because the anonymous writers are in fact activists, writing for a blog that claims independance:
“We believe accuracy should be the key value in discussing climate change, and we aim to act as an independent mediator between the media and scientists. Our aim is to increase social and political understanding of the risks of climate change so that we can make more informed decisions as a society.”
It is their own interests at least, because what reputable journalist/editor would use their resource, when the author is unknown.
Their readership will no doubt not care who the authors are, as many appear to have have their own preconceptions about us ‘sceptics’ or in one of their followers words ‘climate deniars’

oops sorry for muliple comments… I tried a few different ways, as they seemed to get stuck in the spam filter.
No need to keep the earlier ones, the 3.29 one should do 😉

Urederra

So, the decline hiders strike again.

Theo Goodwin

It seems to me that what is interesting about the BEST project is not the numbers that they might put up but their explanations of what they are doing with the data. I take it that they are offering some account of UHI. That is new. Warmista simply deny UHI. I take it that will offer several interesting explanations of how they depart from Warmista orthodoxy. Then the focus becomes not the numbers but the alternative approaches to how the numbers are handled. Though promising, this will not be fully satisfying because we know that the raw data contains more error than the alleged rise of one degree per century.
Muller’s video on Youtube is promising because he is willing to speak candidly. He condemns “hide the decline.” He compares Hansen’s numbers to NOAA and flatly rejects Hansen’s numbers, and so on. So, there is promise. If successful, BEST’s work should raise far more questions than it settles. It is science, after all. That is an important step in wresting control of climate science from Warmista. Warmista are anything but candid and refuse to offer or discuss explanations of their methods. Forcing them to engage in discussion of scientific method would be a great victory in itself.

Michael D Smith

The only thing Joe has that’s exclusive to alarmists is his check from George Soros. The guy’s a paid shill for Big Green, his site is nothing more than an advertisement. The only difference between it and RealClimate is that RC is taxpayer funded advocacy.

Peter Miller

Once again, it just goes to show there is climate science and there is “climate science” – the latter, of course, being expounded by Romm, Mann and other members of the Team, Gore, Patchi and goofy politicians almost everywhere.

John Tofflemire

Jeff B. says:
“What is the percentage of the earth’s surface area covered by these data sets? Is there really near enough to get a grand unified temperature? Over land? Possibly with satellites? Seems like a qualified unification.”
Jeff, all of the answers to your questions can be found by reading the following:
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary.pdf

John Tofflemire

It seems that urban sites in the BEST data base will be identified as residuals and then effectively recalibrated. This approach seems simpler than the tortuous, potentially judgment laden approach adopted by Hansen, Jones, etc.

Baa Humbug

Good luck to the BEST team in the field of work they’ve chosen to do.
Averaging temperature data from a bunch of places around the land mass will tell us what exactly about the effects of CO2 emissions?
I never understood the practice of coming up with a single temperature figure for the globe. It makes no sense to me.
If however, data was collected from about a dozen locations on each continent covering all climate types, i.e. desert, alpine, polar, altitude, forest, grassland etc etc and it could be shown that well mixed GHGs have individually and seperately caused these places to warm, I may not be so sceptical.
I can have a guess at what results we might get. Some places will have warmed a lot, some a little. some not and some may have even cooled. If my suspicion is correct, then AGW has got nothing, it’s a failed hypothesis.

RockyRoad

Romm is an abject embarrassment to the scientific community. He’s not objective, he’s not immune to politics, he’s not truthful, and he’s not stable. He’s sorta like Al Gore with a degree.

pyromancer76

Ron Manley, 3/22/11, 2:47 am:
“My concern with BEST is not the methodology but the data behind it. Anthony’s study of US stations has shown how poor a lot of the data from an advanced country can be. I have worked with Met data in over 40 countries and all continents except Antarctic. I can assure you that in many countries the situation is worse than the US.”
Anthony, I share Ron Manley’s concern. How can we get accurate science if the data is in (serious) question — adjusted, moved from high altitude to low, stations dropped out, airports selected — from your work and E.M. Smith’s among others? Perhaps you have shown them your surface stations project and they are selecting accurately? Have they done this in Japan? Some of Japan meteorology folks were going along with the AGW scam, too. Money speaks globally. I like that they are conferring with you among others about methods and data, but your assurance that this will be “science” seems to me a belief until we can see “all”.
I get even more worried, living in Kalifornia, knowing this is coming out of Berkeley.
I also have similar concerns as The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, 2:39 am: “But am I alone in thinking that you shouldn’t give Mr Romm any publicity? I’ve read his blog, and I was concerned for his mind, to be honest.” I have not read his blog for a long time. If he is an important voice for AGW — that means read by many — then, yes, it is good to keep the record straight. But if his readership has declined so as to make him inconsequential, then it seems to me that his name gets mentioned so often that he is either being used as a fool for specific purposes or is getting free advertising. My request: can you give some of the stats re Joe Romm so we know how many people are reading him? My thought for what it’s worth: IF his readership has significantly declined, it might be better to give your valuable press-time to more reasonable AGWers.
By the way, I am fine with Willis setting his record straight. And I probably don’t get the importance of this within the scientific community.

Bernie McCune

I agree with Ron Manley about the basic quality of the data. Also that most of these measurement sites are in urban areas and not in rural areas, forests or places away from humans. Urban areas make up only about 2.4 % of all the earth’s land area. Forests make up about 32%, pastures 26%, arable land 10.6% (of which about half is used), and the rest is “other” types of land at 29% (deserts, snow and ice covered land, mountains etc.).
Manmade global warming as it is determined from surface temperature data is probably more an artifact of using temperature measuring sites that were intended for other purposes so that we end up trying to correlate CO2 rise with Urban Heat Island effects. And personally I don’t think CO2 has anything to do with it anyway.
Bernie

Dave Springer

@Anthony
You don’t seem to understand how the cottage industry that grew up around global generating global warming papers works. The conclusions are written first which includes a gratuitous appeal for more funding for additional research. Then the research is done that supports the conclusions.
Many of us who understand how the industry works knew what the conclusions would be before the research began and told you that the results would fall in line with previous analyses. It will of course be just enough different so that more papers can be published that are analyses of this paper which serves to keep the industry alive and well.

Frank K.

So…who is this “Joe Romm” and why is he important???

Dave Springer

Barry Woods says:
March 22, 2011 at 3:29 am

Let us give Joe Romm some credit! how ever wrong and hysterical he gets.
At least he puts his own name to what he writes (as does Anthony, et al) ….. and we can then respond…
I’m thinking about writing an article about an influential blog that writes critically about WUWT (and others) and in my opinion misrepresents WUWT, yet the writer remains anonymous and the articles are tweeted to the worlds media and followed by those with influence.

Hi Barry. I figured you must have forgotten to add a hyperlink to the “influential website” so readers here could see who you were talking about. Fixed that for ya!

Bernie McCune

Maybe I should have said that CO2 doesn’t have MUCH to do with it anyway.
Bernie

Joe Lalonde

Anthony,
Science has still yet to understand that the planet is NOT a cylinder but a globe and the biggest area of mass is at the equator. Highly complex to understand the physical movements and speeds, distances in atmosphere heights, etc.
Strictly following temperatures fails to look at the highly complex mechanical processes and highly complex interaction in these processes.
A simple understanding of a circle is a joke to the highly complex process it is in motion. Then add on a global shape of smaller and smaller rings, Just on the planet surface, not to mention the inside of the planet. Compression and speeds in motion are not too hard to understand.
BUT it takes a highly complex way of thinking than the current individual line of understanding.

Dave Springer

“REPLY:WUWT will have coverage, no matter what the result. We are watching science being done – Anthony”
Perhaps in the same manner that watching a superbowl commercial is seeing football being done…

geo

After they do their initial, it’d be nice if they also moved on to seeing if they can determine the *least* number of high-quality long-lived sites it would take to come up with a global average of respectable length. . . and then compare the two results as a way, perhaps, of quantifying UHI on a global scale.
High quality being remote, unpolluted, and with long detailed records that would identify when any equipment changes happened.

Jit

Never been to Romm’s place before. The article biting back against the corrections Willis made reads like someone on coke babbling to a roomful of people who aren’t really listening.
He calls WUWT the “anti-science” brigade – a monicker he refutes in the same article by admitting that the corrections were valid. (Getting to the truth being the essence of science).
But I found the comments more disturbing still. They think we say what we say for political reasons. We are all “of the right” and therefore think instinctively that whatever governments try to make us do is wrong. We select only the evidence that agrees with us.
Personally I have no axe to grind politically. I am interested in the facts. Just the facts. Contrary to the belief of contributors at CP, it is obvious to skeptics that CO2 is rising. Maybe the temperature is rising a smidgeon, too.
The problem I have always had is with the justification for predictions of “catastrophe.” I have seen no evidence of catastrophe to justify squandering gazillions of beer tokens on preventing it.
Recent evidence shows the effects of climate change will be mixed. Of course! Problem is, in today’s world, we can’t accept there will ever be losers and gainers. We are expected to “freeze” climate where it is right now, for ever.
Don’t let these numpties switch off the lights over the entire world.

observa

‘BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”’
Personally I’d like to know the whole context of that last statement by Prof Richard Muller there Joe, but rest assured Prof Muller firmly believes, that even in the absence of increased cloud cover offsetting any CO2 induced warming (and he stresses that’s one big hypothetical absence to be sure), then certainly none of the policies raised by Team Science pinpointing CO2 are going to have any more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming. That’s after he is generally scathing about all the tricks the Team has played on us all here-

Anyway Joe, what’s all the fuss about after the latest definitive study showing only half a degree of global warming over 160 years here-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/global-temperatures-on-the-rise/story-e6freuyi-1226026172858
(yes the Oz Govt is out and about spruiking for a carbon tax and so the usual sheltered workshops are turning out the advertising)

kim

It’s about time to get real. Paid propaganda is evil. No, make that Evil.
====================

Jeremy

I really think you should stop fencing with Romm, Anthony. I mean, fer chrissakes, the guy’s clearly unarmed in the wit department.

RockyRoad

Dave Springer says:
March 22, 2011 at 6:15 am

“REPLY:WUWT will have coverage, no matter what the result. We are watching science being done – Anthony”
Perhaps in the same manner that watching a superbowl commercial is seeing football being done…

Totally bogus comment, Dave. Totally.

RockyRoad

But to be fair, Dave Springer… are you a scientist? Do you delve with the method, the process, the results in any professional way whatsoever? Do you have any basis for your comments about science? Please enlighten us. Thanks.

Jimbo

I am on a slow connection. I tried to post the following to “Tips and Notes” but my browser kept crashing.
******************************

21 March 2011 – UN News Centre
“Forested areas in Europe, North America, the Caucasus and Central Asia have been increasing steadily, growing by 25 million hectares over the past two decades,…”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37845&Cr=&Cr1=

All this during the 2 ‘hottest’ decades on the record ie 2000–2009 and 2000 – 2009. Note that 2010 was the second ‘hottest’ year on the record.
Repeat after me co2 is not plant food but a toxin. Warmer is much worse than colder.

JP

I question the whole Malthusian population premise from top to bottom. What I find astonishing about Romm’s et als population/CO2 correlation is that if they are correct, the opposite will happen. The data is right before our eyes, yet they consistently preach that our populations will continue to increase “exponentially”. There is not one G20 nation outside of India that has positive TFR trends. Quite the opposite. The world is getting older, much older. Longevity alone is masking our population problem. But, older populations consume less, as well as produce less. If anything, we are a t a peak of the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas concentrations. Unless TFRs do a 180 degree flip, global population will peak much earlier than 2050. And if that’s the case, the entire AGW debate is truly finished.

Jimbo

Correction:
Should have said hottest decade on the record.