Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I took a lot of flak last year for my post saying that the global 50% drop in phytoplankton claimed by Boyce et. al was an illusion. I had said:
So where did the Nature paper go wrong?
The short answer is that I don’t know … but I don’t believe their results. The paper is very detailed, in particular the Supplementary Online Information (SOI). It all seems well thought out and investigated … but I don’t believe their results. They have noted and discussed various sources of error. They have compared the use of Secchi disks as a proxy, and covered most of the ground clearly … and I still don’t believe their results.
In other words, I took my chances on my experience and went way, way out on a limb with my statements. And of course, people didn’t let me forget it.
Figure 1. Life Cycle of Phytoplankton
Now we get these two “Brief Communications Arising“, from Nature magazine (emphasis mine).
Nature Volume: 472, Pages: E6–E7
Brief Communication Arising (April, 2011) Arising from D. G. Boyce, M. R. Lewis & B. Worm Nature 466, 591–596 (2010)
Phytoplankton account for approximately 50% of global primary production, form the trophic base of nearly all marine ecosystems, are fundamental in trophic energy transfer and have key roles in climate regulation, carbon sequestration and oxygen production. Boyce et al.1 compiled a chlorophyll index by combining in situ chlorophyll and Secchi disk depth measurements that spanned a more than 100-year time period and showed a decrease in marine phytoplankton biomass of approximately 1% of the global median per year over the past century. Eight decades of data on phytoplankton biomass collected in the North Atlantic by the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey2, however, showan increase in an index of chlorophyll (Phytoplankton Colour Index) in both the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic basins3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (Fig. 1), and other long-term time series, including the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT)8, the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series (BATS)8 and the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI)9 also indicate increased phytoplankton biomass over the last 20–50 years. These findings, which were not discussed by Boyce et al.1, are not in accordance with their conclusions and illustrate the importance of using consistent observations when estimating long-term trends.
Along with this one:
Nature 472, E5–E6 (14 April 2011)
Brief Communication Arising (April, 2011) Arising from D. G. Boyce, M. R. Lewis & B. Worm Nature 466, 591–596 (2010)
… Closer examination reveals that time-dependent changes in sampling methodology combined with a consistent bias in the relationship between in situ and transparency-derived chlorophyll (Chl) measurements generate a spurious trend in the synthesis of phytoplankton estimates used by Boyce et al.1. Our results indicate that much, if not all, of the century-long decline reported by Boyce et al. is attributable to this temporal sampling bias and not to a global decrease in phytoplankton biomass.
OK, so I was right. The Boyce paper was nonsense, the claimed trend was spurious, plankton biomass is holding somewhere near steady or even increasing, and a number of independent records show that the Boyce et al. paper is garbage built on bad assumptions.
I bring this up for three reasons. The first is to show the continuing shabby quality of peer-review at scientific magazines when the subject is even peripherally related to climate. Nature magazine blew it again, and unfortunately, these days that’s no news at all. It’s just more shonky science from the AGW crowd … and people claim the reason the public doesn’t trust climate scientists is a “communications problem”? It’s not. It’s a garbage science problem, and all the communications theory in the world won’t fix garbage science.
The second reason I posted this is just because I enjoy it when it turns out that I’m right, particularly on a risky statement made with no data and in the face of opposition, and I wanted to enter that fact into the record. Childish, I know, but at least I’m adult enough to admit it.
The third reason is a bit more complex. It is to emphasize the value of actual experience. I didn’t disbelieve Boyce et al. because I had any data. I had no data at all.
What I did have was a lifetime spent on and under the ocean. Phytoplankton form the basis of all life in the ocean. If the phytoplankton had actually gone down by 50%, all life in the ocean would have gone down by 50% … and my experience said no way that was true. Fish catches haven’t gone down like that, numbers of species on the reef and along the coast haven’t gone down like that, I would have noticed, people around the world would have been screaming about it.
So I put my neck on the chopping block, and I trusted my experience … and in the end, despite the people who laughed at me and abused my claims, my experience won out over Boyce’s “science”.
Does this mean that we should always trust our experience over science? Don’t be daft. Science is hugely valuable, and often shows that our experience has misled us completely.
But far too many scientists forget to check the obvious – their own experience. Not one of the Boyce authors thought “Wait a minute … since the oceans live almost entirely off the phytoplankton, if plankton is down by half why haven’t I seen oceanic populations from krill to whales and octopuses dropping by half?” Or perhaps they just didn’t have the experience to check the obvious.
The moral of this story? Well, the moral for me is that trusting my experience over the “science” of high-powered scientists living in an ivory tower far above the ocean worked out well … this time.
But the real moral is that scientists need to pay more attention to the “laugh test”. I know when I first heard the Boyce claim, I busted out laughing … and when our experience is that strong in saying that science is wrong, it’s likely worth checking out.
w.
ADDED LATER For me, there’s a few tests that I apply regularly that seem to not be applied by far too many mainstream AGW supporting scientists. These are the smell test, the laugh test, and the eyeball test.
The laugh test weeds out the worst, like the preposterous claim that plankton had been decreasing by 1% per year for the last century. The “Rule of 70” gives the doubling time for an investment. You divide 70 by the annual interest rate, and that gives the doubling time in years.
The Rule of Seventy gives seventy years for doubling time at 1%, so that means in a hundred years the total biomass of the ocean has decreased by more than 50% … seriously, I laughed. The biomass of the ocean decreased by more than half and nobody noticed until now?
The smell test is more subtle. It depends on the provenance of the information, and the way it has been handled, whether it looks “natural”, the history of the investigators, and the like. While the smell test can’t reject anything, it shows me where to look for something wrong.
The eyeball test is simple. Look at every single dataset. There is absolutely no substitute for the experienced human eye. You say there’s seven thousand of them? Boo hoo. You can’t just make up an algorithm and apply it without seeing what it does to every single station record. If there’s a large number, I just write a program in R that just flashes them on the screen for a second along with an ID number. I just let it roll, and jot down the numbers of the ones that stand out.
Now before anyone starts screaming about computerized checking, yes, they are extremely valuable. I’m a whiz at error-trapping, anomaly finding, and computerized checking in a variety of computer languages.
But computerized checking is only as good as the person who wrote the computerized checks. And until you understand every different way that your data might be contaminated or tainted or erroneous for a host of reasons, you will not be able to write computerized checks to identify those particular errors.
And the only way to do that is to put each and every dataset to the eyeball test. There’s an example of what I mean in my post When Good Proxies Go Bad over at ClimateAudit. (Y’all should definitely visit ClimateAudit, Steve McIntyre is continuing his amazing exposition of the never-ending revelations of the “hide the decline” fandango …)
Berényi Péter says:
April 25, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Many thanks for that, Berényi. I’m always reluctant to post material that’s behind a firewall … I don’t really understand the ethics and limitations of that.
w.
+1 For this article.
There are some bloggers in the AGW camp who have shown time and time again that they have no understanding of the data they’re looking at. They tend to be on the mathematics side of the field and I daresay are a bit younger with little real world experience.
Really effective real-world-based intuition is an invaluable skill as a starting point when considering a result.
I’ll give it another +1 actually 🙂
There’s another old saying that goes something like, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That evidence was something the “50% decliners” could not provide.
“The eyeball test is simple. Look at every single dataset. There is absolutely no substitute for the experienced human eye. You say there’s seven thousand of them? Boo hoo. You can’t just make up an algorithm and apply it without seeing what it does to every single station record. If there’s a large number, I just write a program in R that just flashes them on the screen for a second along with an ID number. I just let it roll, and jot down the numbers of the ones that stand out.”
I do assays in 96-well plates, and typically measure 16 minute-6 minute, typically measuring a n=4, 8 or 12. 5 min gives me a temperature equilibrium, so all the wells are at the same temperature.
I could (and have) calculate the rate of a line drawn from 6 to 16 minutes, but it takes a while and also includes blips.
I eye-ball each one and find that 16-6, or 15 -5, far better than plotting.
I can get the spec-computer to do all the analysis, running the company software, but it misses bubbles, blips and pipetting errors. Far better to eyeball and stick the whole thing in excel.
Frank says:
April 25, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I couldn’t agree more, Frank. I just a) didn’t have solid observations and b) knew that their claim wasn’t valid. So I went with what I had, and I’m overjoyed to see that my position is supported by the science.
Also, I would distinguish between “common sense” and the “laugh test”. For me, the laugh test is always based on observations and experience, not just common sense. I’ve spent a lifetime on and in the ocean, as a commercial and sport fisherman, a commercial and sport diver, a surfer, a transcontinental sailor, and a boatbuilder. So my judgement was based on much more than common sense.
w.
Joe Lalonde says:
April 25, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I hate uncited claims, particularly ones that start with “would you believe”. No, I wouldn’t believe it, not without a citation, although it certainly may be true.
And even if true, and in the four million years that kinda-human life has existed on earth the sea level has gone down by one whole metre … so what?
w.
Willis: “The third reason is a bit more complex. It is to emphasize the value of actual experience. I didn’t disbelieve Boyce et al. because I had any data. I had no data at all.”
Sometimes things just don’t pass the common sense test. Before I knew anything about climate science or had any reason to doubt it, one of the first things I was exposed to was Mann’s hockey stick. Both the nonvariation in the handle and the extremeness of the blade made me react with “horsepucky”. I had no evidence at all, but my BS sensor still went off. It did make me want to learn more. Since then my BS sensor has gone off many times, and when more results come in, the sensor is usually right.
scott says April 25, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Scott,
I totally agree with you, building on Rudyard Kipling’s “Six honest serving men”
Science is a process of refinement in which we progress from Data to Information to Knowledge and then achieve Wisdom through the application of Knowledge.
In science Data are the numbers, they allow us to answer the question What?
What time is it?
What is the temperature?
Information is organised data.
Information allows us to answer the questions Where? (e.g. by charts & maps) and When? (e.g. by graphs & timetables).
Knowledge is organised information. Knowledge allows us to answer the question How?
How do I bake a cake?
How do I get to Dublin?
Wisdom allows us to answer the question Why? as in
“Why should we do (or not do) this?”
Wisdom, the application of appropriate knowledge, can only be achieved by experience. Experience is achieved by the investment of time in the practice of a skill and as such wisdom cannot be imposed, wisdom can only be learned.
Assumptions not checked against empirical data are simply good guesses and we all know how good guesses are. This is a perfect example of hard and honest work for nothing because the assumptions that were assumed correct were later shown to be other. Not good science, not science at all.
Willis, as a junior engineer I did some database work for our mine’s production tracking. We took information from equipment timecards (as filled out by the operators) and entered it into the computer. Knowing GIGO, and trying to be a conscientious junior, I built some checks for the most likely errors that would cause imbalances in the day or for the monthend balances (differences in load counts between the loading units and the trucks hauling from them, differences in where a shovel was). One button click ran all of the tests, and displayed any data that didn’t pass my BS filter. After my boss thought I’d suffered enough, he passed the data entry on to a technician. The technician wasn’t as involved in the day to day operations of the mine, so frequently had questions about what equipment could do what and where it was working. He had reasonable computer skills, and asked for my help in adding to the list of daily-data-entry-checks. We were up to 8 checks when he was promoted away from the database, and it was passed to a co-op student for a short time. After the next monthend balances, we were up to about 15 checks. When the co-op went back to school and the data entry was passed on to a payroll clerk with no knowledge of how the mine worked and what equipment could do what activities, we eventually wound up with 24 automated checks to be done every day to check the data entry.
Why did I type all of this? 1) When you make it more idiot-proof, they’ll make a better idiot. 2) Whether something passes the smell test depends upon your background. Your bio was interesting, and explains why you knew something was wrong from the start. The payroll clerk in my example above was quite bright, but didn’t know enough about the field to splot even what I would have considered the most obvious of mistakes. If one only looks at numbers and computer screens, results that a fisherman would laugh at can still look reasonable because the programmer doesn’t know any better.
Boyce et al are holding their line in their reply….
And claim that the CPR (Continuous Plankton Recorder) color index is not comparable to direct Chlorophyll or transparency measurements, as it is biased towards larger more visible plankton.
Confusing? it is to me, and I agree with Willis that these creatures are the start of a long food chain, that does not seem to be diminishing.
My favorite thread of since climategate
“The world can only be grasped by action, not by contemplation…. The hand is the cutting edge of the mind.” – Jacob Bronowski (The Ascent of Man 1973)
“I believe that there never was a creator of a philosophical system who did not confess at the end of his life that he had wasted his time. It must be admitted that the inventors of the mechanical arts have been much more useful to men than the inventors of syllogisms.” – Voltaire (Philosophical Dictionary 1764)
“The doer alone learnith.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
“It is good to be learned in the things that are hidden from the wise and the intellectual ones of the world but are revealed, as if by nature, to the poor and simple, to women and little children.” – Vincent van Gogh (letter to Theo van Gogh, 1878)
“Man thinks, God laughs.” – Jewish proverb
“Tell me where is fancy bred. Or in the heart or in the head?” – William Shakespeare (The Merchant of Venice 1598)
Willis,
And even if true, and in the four million years that kinda-human life has existed on earth the sea level has gone down by one whole metre … so what?
You didn’t follow through to 4 billion years then which would be 1,000 meters.
Actually we DO have proof. Trapped sea salt is found in high elevation to the sea level.
Trapped oceanic life gives the material to date when the formations were formed.
A few waves does NOT make a mine full of sea salt deposits. It takes many layerings of ocean water to achieve the thickness and the slow dropping of the ocean level.
Secchi disks are not precision instruments. The error bars on readings have to be rather large because water surface roughness and reflectivity are highly variable. I know, having used one long ago, the difficulty of accurate measurement. Yet, in the pre-electronic era, it was the best you could do. The most costly error arises, though, with trying to squeeze too much meaning out of inherent uncertainty.
Willis,
Forgotten to mention that with over 1,000 meters of water on land when volcanic activity is occurring produces a great deal of deposits blamed on Ice Ages that where NEVER around many areas.
I have commented several times on here about the water vapor hypothesis that is the basis of the AGW hypothesis. ie. that water vapor in the air increases the temperature.
As someone who lives 300metres from the Pacific Ocean, this has never passed the eyeball/smell/laugh test for me. The temperature is never as high at the seaside as it is inland where there is no large body of water. Go look at any temperature graph.
Is this settled? Really? To claim “you’re right” about this so quickly seems a bit premature to say the least, though I can well understand your self-admitted “childish”
desire to be right about this, but I think a proper skeptic might sit back and remain skeptical toward either side of this issue until a wee bit more data and studies have been done.
Gates,
Even Nature acknowledges that Boyce et al. were in error:
“…much, if not all, of the century-long decline reported by Boyce et al. is attributable to this temporal sampling bias and not to a global decrease in phytoplankton biomass.”
And:
“…indicate increased phytoplankton biomass over the last 20–50 years.”
C’mon, admit it: your world view is 110% warmist. We’ll understand.
Willis, if you haven’t done so already, download a copy of Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcom Gladwell. Yours is a classic example of the process in action.
As a teaser, the initial story in the book concerns a famous museum that acquired for possible purchase, what was presented as a fabulously rare antique statue. Not wanting to tip off the art dealers who might outbid them, they studied the statue in minute detail, mass spectrograms of the paint, analysis of the wood composition and carbon dating, on and on. Until they had convinced themselves that the statue was real, at which point they paid a very large sum of money to the seller.
Then they created an “opening” to show their new discovery to the art community. The experts entered the room and in seconds broke into laughter, commenting that “I hope you didn’t pay much for that forgery” and the like. The museum staff were mortified and not a little offended – after all, they had spent a year studying this statue in the most minute detail. But the museum had indeed been bilked out of millions of dollars by an artful fraudster.
The individual educated human brain is one of the most powerful integrators of information around. Not surprising that your “BS detector” went off immediately. And thanks for putting it out there for all to see.
Personally, I had a similar experience (with the opposite sign) upon reading your hypothesis about the tropics as the Earth’s thermostat. Living in Panama at 9 degrees North and observing the weather patterns from an excellent observation point at 4100 feet with a view to the Pacific, your hypothesis instantly made sense out of what I was seeing. Correlating that with the available satellite imagery, SSTs and such only strengthens my “hunch” that you are absolutely right.
Good work Willis and what I truly admire is the fact that you are one who has extensive real world maritime experience. I’ve found many old Crabbers and Trollers know more than many ‘scientists’ who have never made a living off the Sea…
Mike D. says:
April 25, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“Our species is growing stupider thanks to the modern Rise of Superstition and Apocalyptic Panic masquerading as rationality.”
Yeah, this is another case of “over-exuberant hysteria.” It is the most characteristic psychological dysfunction of this era. Unfortunately, the Left sees it as virtue. The Left busts their buns to promote hysteria, but they also suffer from it. I would like to see the editor or editors who approved this article. I bet he bounces off the wall moment to moment.
Douglas C
From a speech by the great John Isaacs:
“I have much greater faith in simple observations and untrammeled
thinking than I have in sophisticated observations and simplistic thinking!
And I have much greater confidence that man’s relationship to the sea and
its resources will be enhanced by thoughtful and observant people closely
involved and broadly acquainted with the sea—scientist and non-scientist
alike—than by frantic bureaucratic responses to public hysteria or by the
pontification of the scientific hierarchy.”
Willis, I’d have the same suspicions about this data. A 50% drop in plankton would affect all sea life and, (as Pat Frank beat me to it), atmospheric O2 levels would be showing a small decline as a result. Considering the precision to which atmospheric composition can be determined for the last 50 years, it would have been prudent for the authors of the declining plankton paper to have checked if their conclusions were consistent with atmospheric O2 concentrations.
I also graph all data I’m working with and find that I can pick up patterns that don’t show up in simple statistical analyses. What I’ve found recently is that looking at various fractal measures of data seems to be a way of coming up with similar conclusions that eyeballing the data does. What I find striking about climate “science” is that paucity of analyses appropriate to what is chaotic data. Hurst was was ahead of the game in his analysis of river flows over 50 years ago but most climate “scientists” seem to assume that statistical methods appropriate for Gaussian distributions can be used for their data.
“Joe Lalonde says:
April 25, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Joe Lalonde says:
April 25, 2011 at 4:09 pm
This planet loses .00025mm of water through the atmosphere per year which translates to 2.5mm/10,000 years.
If you decide to follow this math, then a few hundred meters of water has been lost in 1 billion years.
You didn’t follow through to 4 billion years then which would be 1,000 meters.
Actually we DO have proof. Trapped sea salt is found in high elevation to the sea level.”
Joe, I am a physics teacher and not a geology teacher so on this topic, you may wish to take my comments with a grain of salt. : -) But just because sea salt is now found at high elevations does not necessarily mean that Earth has lost a lot of water. Is it not just as likely that there were profound changes in the geology of the Earth so previous low lying areas under the ocean were lifted up due to the movement of plate tectonics?
Now as for water escaping, do you have a source I can read to verify that? The fact that sea salt can now be found at high elevations does not prove water was lost. I know for example that hydrogen and helium can reach escape velocity high up in the atmosphere. Water, with a molar mass of 18 would have a much harder time escaping, but water has the additional huge problem of condensing when it gets cold and then falling as rain or snow. So unlike all other gases, there would be extremely few water molecules in a position to reach escape velocity very high up in the atmosphere.