Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Reframing Attribution

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 7:04 AM GMT on March 26, 2011

Reframing Attribution:

It the previous entry I wrote about the perils and pitfalls of event attribution. In this entry I want to untangle a few issues and, then, ultimately reframe attribution. Reframe? This is in the spirit of psychology and sociology, a different way to look at something. In this case, take the word, “attribution” and think about the meaning of this word, say, from the point of view of scientists, journalists, politicians ….

To be concrete, start with this scenario.

1) There is an extreme weather event, perhaps a hurricane submerges New Orleans, or a heat wave kills 1000s in Moscow.
2) Advocates say that the event is global warming.
3) Politicians say that the event is global warming.
4) Scientists suggest that the circumstances of the event are consistent with global warming.
5) Journalists ask if the extreme event is natural or global warming.
6) Different groups of scientists hurry to investigate the event. It takes a while.
7) The scientists publish their papers and because the event was newsworthy, the journalists follow up and ask again: Was the event natural or was it global warming?

There is in this scenario entanglement. We have scientists, journalists, and politicians. I have explicitly used the plural form to suggest that there are many perspectives, many points of view, many purposes represented. Because of the presence of political interests, the question is being asked in a social environment that is more political than it is scientific.

In the previous entry, I wrote, “It is hard to see how playing the game of defining extreme events and then attributing that event to ‘climate change’ can ever be won. In fact, it seems like it is a game that necessarily leads to controversy, and controversy is the fuel of talk radio, blogs propagating around the world, and the maintenance of doubt.” The game to which I refer is described above: event, fast public attribution of the event to climate change, scientific investigation and deliberation, scientific conclusion that the event is not wholly-and-solely due to climate change. In the formal and informal media, this game devolves to:

“This event is the proof of global warming,” followed some months later by, “No it is not.”

You can read the previous entry on why I maintain trying to attribute a single event to climate change with a yes-or-no answer or to split our weather into natural-and-changed is not scientifically sensible. That does not mean, however, that we should not study extreme events and place them into context with history, a warming climate, and how they inform our future. In fact, I have maintained that one of the most important tasks for climate scientists to take on is the quantification of variability that is “short-term” compared with the “long-term” normally associated with climate. (See Some Jobs for Modelers, and Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice and Land) Which brings me to “attribution.”

In the discourse described above, amongst the politicians, journalists, and scientists, “attribution” has risen to mean, “Can this event be attributed to climate change?” Sometimes it is worth going back to basics. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language attribute is “to relate to a particular cause or source.” And from the Glossary of Terms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Detection and Attribution: Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.”

In fact, neither of these definitions require a yes-or-no, wholly-and-solely answer that a particular event was “caused” by the warming of the planet by increasing greenhouse gases. That requirement has risen from the quagmire of the public discourse.

In the piece Some Jobs for Modelers I talk about “forecast busts.” These are well known to weather buffs, when weather forecasts fail. It is worst when severe weather shows up unexpectedly. In December of 1999 there was a series of Atlantic storms that hit France which were badly forecast. Detailed examination of the observations, the forecast model, and the ability of model to utilize those observations, revealed that there was adequate information to provide a better forecast. Specific failures in the forecast system were identified. (A complicated paper on those storms: Dee et al. 2001) When I think of attribution and a single extreme event, then I think of the detailed scientific investigation of the processes that come together at the occurrence of that event.

There are many reasons to pose such a study. A basic reason is to understand the physical processes. For example, in a historic heat wave, what is the impact of regional changes in the forest, agriculture, and the urban environment? What are the specifics of the atmospheric flow that allow the development of a period of persistent heat? A perfectly legitimate question is whether or not changes in our environment related to greenhouse gases have had a discernible influence on the event.

So that becomes the question. In the complex mix of processes that are responsible for determining the temperature and winds and rain of an extreme event, is there a discernible contribution that can accounted against, attributed to, climate change? To make it more challenging, climate change is not a simple, unrelenting, uniform warming of the surface. Therefore, if there is to be a discernible signal, then it has to rise above the variability, the noise, that is implied by the complexity described in the previous paragraphs. It is not a question of whether or not an extreme event is caused by climate change, it is what influence might be attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases.

That said, there are many reasons to investigate which processes, which causes, are responsible for an extreme event. A fundamental one is to improve the ability to predict the event. Another reason is to understand the impact of the event, assess the risk associated with such events in the future, and, if warranted, develop the ways to better prepare for such events.

I want to return to the my previous blog, which was motivated by a story that originated in the Green Blog by John Rudolf on the New York Times website (March 9, 2011) about the Russian heat wave in the summer of 2010. The news story reported on a paper by Randy Dole and co-authors. Within hours the Dole et al. paper was headlined on both news sites and in blogs that the paper said that the 2010 Russian heat wave had no relation to global warming. It is a source of continuing and intensifying controversy. ( from Climate Progress, recall that above, I deliberately used the plural of scientist.)

Here is the link to the abstract of Dole et al., Was There a Basis for Anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave? Dole et al. take an approach to the problem that is process-based, in the spirit of the process-based approach to a busted forecast. They search for the signal over the noise, and for the 2010 event cannot state definitively that the signal related to the increase of greenhouse gases exceeds the noise. I want to quote, however, two sentences from the “Concluding Remarks” of Dole et al.

“The results suggest that we may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly, due primarily to the influence of projected increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

And looking forward.

“However, as is the case of the 2010 Russian heat waves, events will also occur that are not readily anticipated from knowledge of either prior climate trends or specific climate forcings, and for which advance warning may thus be limited.”

The Dole et al. paper does not state in any way that global warming is unreal. Quite the contrary, they work in a rigorous physics-based approach and investigate this region, at this time, for this event, and ask in the context of a forecasting problem, can a discernible contribution be attributed to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Their method, their analysis, their conclusions - that for some highly particular reasons - the climate change signal has not popped out of the natural variability. But as they say, it has in other places, for other phenomena.

Dole et al. provide one scientific approach to the problem of event attribution. There are other approaches. (see Barriopedro et al. The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Map of Europe) The conclusions from these results are likely to be different, and that difference may appear inconsequential to some and enormous to others. And while these differences might appear as important to scientists, my point is that this process of event attribution is a place where the scientific investigation of the climate interfaces, strongly,with the media. Therefore, it is also a place where, by definition, scientific investigation interfaces with the political argument. Politically or in terms of informing the public, a primary result of this process is to build, amplify and maintain doubt. Here, I have tried to reframe attribution. Next, on reframing the dialogue.

r

Previous blogs on the disruptions and communications of climate science. (or how can climate scientists contribute to political discrediting of science.)

Strength in Many Peers

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

What to Do? What to Do?

If Lady Chatterley’s Lover, then …

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Categories: Climate Change Climate Change Attribution

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index

51. quasigeostropic 6:48 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
buster, is your idea peer-reviewed? You've offered no proof of it working yet. Just theories. Have you actually made plausible experiments showing your idea in action? That's how most things in science get started and then accepted or rejected in the scientific community. Member Since: November 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192

52. rwwhot 7:03 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Obsession with event attribution seems foolish to me at the foundation. With, or without climate change there will be localized extreme weather events, and people will always look for some oddball scapegoat to tack it onto. The problem is that the extreme events make good media, flashy pictures, big numbers, fast moving and changing, lots to talk about; yet the big weather event usually has minimal impact on real climate, and only is interesting because someone's house was in the way. At the same time, hugely significant and powerful changes in the average temperature of the ocean or measurable changes in sea level, barely make for a back page note. Because the numbers aren't big and there are no explosive photographs of the ocean getting one degree warmer, or 1cm higher. Thus, if you are a politician or reporter with your wagon hitched to climate change, you can talk about something real, like ocean temperatures, and subsequently be fired for boring everyone to death; or you can scream at the top of your lungs: "SNOW STORM!!! GCC DID IT!" It might be bunk, but you'll keep your job. Member Since: September 20, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 3

53. HaloReachFan 7:10 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting weatherboy1992: Halo when you can prove you're not SSI then we can talk. And really curator of prints and drawings? That's weak. No climatologists or meteorologists on your list. LOL. IDC!!! I NEVER use him as a source. So ask somebody that does Mike. You still have yet to prove you aren't and almost all bloggers on here are convinced you are banned blogger ssi that got banned for threatening children. That is horrible!!! Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

54. HaloReachFan 7:11 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting quasigeostropic: buster, is your idea peer-reviewed? You've offered no proof of it working yet. Just theories. Have you actually made plausible experiments showing your idea in action? That's how most things in science get started and then accepted or rejected in the scientific community. Oh no he has a video. Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

56. quasigeostropic 7:28 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting HaloReachFan: Oh no he has a video. A video he personally made showing scientific experiments of his ideas? Member Since: November 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192

57. sirmaelstrom 7:33 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Concerning the tunnels: There is really two parts to Cyclonebuster's proposals: The first is that energy can be gleaned from the Gulf Stream to generate electricity. It appears that while he's been "tutoring" us here, someone else is already developing the idea--See link following. http://www.gulfstreamturbine.com/ Did you think to patent your idea, Cyclonebuster. If so, maybe you'd want to give those guys a call. The second part is that he believes that the climate can be changed simply by upwelling cooler water to regulate sea surface temperatures. I'm very skeptical of this idea myself, but if Cyclonebuster seriously thinks it's possible he needs to come up with a plan to develop a working prototype that can prove that it is indeed possible. Getting some scientists to endorse his ideas would be the next step--I don't think that he's going to reach too many here, unless he is soliciting Dr.Rood for an endorsement. Lastly, he needs to find an entrepreneur to finance his prototype. Again, I don't get the impression that many of us here are the type of entrepreneurs that could help him realize his dream. I have nothing against Cyclonebuster posting endlessly about his tunnels here personally, and in fact I find him mostly amicable to talk to and rather entertaining at times, especially when others get so frustrated with his posts. I can't help but to think that even if he is on to something, that his energies would be best served in a different manner than continually posting here where nobody is in a position to help him. Just my 2¢. Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

58. NRAamy 7:39 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
TUNNELS!!!!! Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 315 Comments: 31937

59. sirmaelstrom 7:43 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Concerning but not replying to № 55: I have no problem with nuclear myself, and indeed think it is preferable to coal in the long run. I also have read about the concept of IFR reactors and wondered if there is any drawbacks or concerns with them, other than the typical concerns with nuclear. From what I've read, I'm guessing that cost is the main issue. Does anyone else have any opinion of the practicality of this type of reactor? Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

60. HaloReachFan 7:48 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting quasigeostropic: A video he personally made showing scientific experiments of his ideas? I do believe its on his blog he used it in a river or something to that effect. Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563

61. cyclonebuster 8:01 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting HaloReachFan: I do believe its on his blog he used it in a river or something to that effect. Correct. Here it is! And here too! Link Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

62. quasigeostropic 8:41 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
buster, your idea would disrupt the ecosystem of the upper layer of the ocean, if it were possible to get a massive amount of cool water to the surface. Which I don't believe is meteorologically sound myself. Another thing to note, sea surface temps are one of many other variables affecting hurricane development and sustained growth. The upper atmosphere controls most of a hurricane's health(as evidenced by many examples in the past) You can't just stop a cat 5 hurricane by upwelling cold water. Remember, for this to be effective, you would need a very deep layer of cold water on the top of the ocean on a massive scale as wave action would easily diminish man-made shallow layers of cold water on top(especially in areas of high TCHP) Member Since: November 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192

63. cyclonebuster 9:32 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting quasigeostropic: buster, your idea would disrupt the ecosystem of the upper layer of the ocean, if it were possible to get a massive amount of cool water to the surface. Which I don't believe is meteorologically sound myself. Another thing to note, sea surface temps are one of many other variables affecting hurricane development and sustained growth. The upper atmosphere controls most of a hurricane's health(as evidenced by many examples in the past) You can't just stop a cat 5 hurricane by upwelling cold water. Remember, for this to be effective, you would need a very deep layer of cold water on the top of the ocean on a massive scale as wave action would easily diminish man-made shallow layers of cold water on top(especially in areas of high TCHP) In the diagram above if you set Tango Indigo Charlie-026 (TIC-026) set point to anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees it is possible to regulate the temperature to what you want in order to make the climate respond to the given temperature change you made.This will control the flow control valve Tango Victor-026 (TV-026). Tango Indigo Tango-026 (TIT-026)is the temperature indicating transmitter that sends its Process Variable to TIC-026. Would you like to know what this enables us to do with them? It is quite fascinating if you are willing to listen and learn something new! It will be part of your tutoring session if you would like. Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

64. martinitony 9:40 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting quasigeostropic: buster, your idea would disrupt the ecosystem of the upper layer of the ocean, if it were possible to get a massive amount of cool water to the surface. Which I don't believe is meteorologically sound myself. Another thing to note, sea surface temps are one of many other variables affecting hurricane development and sustained growth. The upper atmosphere controls most of a hurricane's health(as evidenced by many examples in the past) You can't just stop a cat 5 hurricane by upwelling cold water. Remember, for this to be effective, you would need a very deep layer of cold water on the top of the ocean on a massive scale as wave action would easily diminish man-made shallow layers of cold water on top(especially in areas of high TCHP) I think you're overthinking this. We make snow for skiing.We break up ice for commerce. We even put out forest fires started by lightning. Think about that before you go knocking Cyclone's ungenious ideas. Liberals like Cyclone would never do anything to disrupt our environment. Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

65. cyclonebuster 9:46 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting martinitony: I think you're overthinking this. We make snow for skiing.We break up ice for commerce. We even put out forest fires started by lightning. Think about that before you go knocking Cyclone's ungenious ideas. Liberals like Cyclone would never do anything to disrupt our environment. Actually,I am a conservative interested in undoing the damage we have already done to this planet be it warming,radioactive,chemical and so on! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

69. cyclonebuster 10:22 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting SteveGoddard1: It appears that sea level is also falling. All of these predictions of doom just keep falling by the wayside. Link I trust this link. Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

70. cyclonebuster 10:24 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
This link too. Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

72. quasigeostropic 10:52 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting martinitony: I think you're overthinking this. We make snow for skiing.We break up ice for commerce. We even put out forest fires started by lightning. Think about that before you go knocking Cyclone's ungenious ideas. Liberals like Cyclone would never do anything to disrupt our environment. His idea of stopping cat 5 hurricanes with his tunnels is highly unfeasible and not sensible. But hey, I guess there's no harm with cb. Because he wouldn't be able to get tunnels big enough to destroy the ecosystem. Member Since: November 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192

74. cyclonebuster 11:18 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting quasigeostropic: His idea of stopping cat 5 hurricanes with his tunnels is highly unfeasible and not sensible. But hey, I guess there's no harm with cb. Because he wouldn't be able to get tunnels big enough to destroy the ecosystem. It's not how big it is,it is how many and how big! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

75. cyclonebuster 11:21 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
Quoting SteveGoddard1: Of course you do. No source, but I would probably say NOAA, NASA, or CRU. Very reliable sources. I read the other day that it's been discovered that they delete any data that doesn't conform with their biases. By the way, the link I provided is objective and is "peer-reviewed." I know that makes all the difference in the world to readers of this blog. More like the link you provided is a virus unlike the links I provide by NOAA! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

76. cyclonebuster 11:31 PM GMT on March 28, 2011
More sugar coating. DUUUH! With an explosion like this what else would you expect? Damaged reactor may be leaking radioactive water, Japan says Tokyo (CNN) -- The containment structure surrounding one of the reactors at a quake-battered nuclear power plant is damaged and may be leaking radioactive material, the Japanese government's point man on the crisis said Monday. The plant's owner disclosed that small amounts of plutonium had been found among contaminants around the facility late Monday as Japanese authorities struggled to explain how radioactive water was leaking into maintenance tunnels and possibly, into the Pacific Ocean. Yukio Edano, Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, told reporters Monday afternoon that "there may be a leak" from the containment vessel surrounding the No. 2 reactor. He said experts were still trying to determine the condition of the reactor's pressure vessel, which sits inside the containment vessel and immediately surrounds the radioactive fuel rods at the reactor's core. "Somehow, we understand water is being moved from one place to another," Edano said. "We need to hear an explanation from experts." Reactors 1-3 at the plant, located about 240 km (140 miles) north of Tokyo, are believed to have suffered core damage after their cooling systems were knocked out by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that ravaged northern Japan. The tsunami knocked out backup generators that ran their coolant systems and damaged water pumps at the plant, forcing workers to scramble to prevent a meltdown. Link Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

79. Patrap 12:14 AM GMT on March 29, 2011
NASA - Chicken Fat Biofuel: Eco-friendly Jet Fuel Alternative? www.nasa.gov Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111244

80. Patrap 12:16 AM GMT on March 29, 2011
Part 2 of 'Global Warming' Project A Canadian View Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 370 Comments: 111244

81. cyclonebuster 1:13 AM GMT on March 29, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL: Maybe you should just ignore him? BTW, his claims are totally insane, as you can see here. Yes, a study run (and funded) by DENIERS found that NOAA, GISS, etc, are accurately reporting global warming! Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU” 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.” The goal of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study was to assemble some clever scientists and statisticians “to resolve current criticism of the [global] temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions.” For a study supposedly aimed at boosting credibility in the surface temperature data record, however, its flaws in conception and operation were beyond head-exploding: 1. It was co-chaired by Richard Muller (author of widely debunked books, blog posts and Wall Street Journal op-eds). Muller himself has actually worked to undermine credibility in well-established science and doesn’t have a great grasp of basic climate science (see here) or energy (see “here). Pie in the face of the deniers! LOL. You see MichaelSTL I agree with you on about 95 percent of this stuff bud! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

82. cyclonebuster 1:17 AM GMT on March 29, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL: That is one thing that I do agree with - given all of the reports of radiation, there HAS to be a major breach in one or more reactors; not "may", "might", etc, but HAS. Here is one scary report: Radioactive fallout from Fukushima is comparable to Chernobyl – ‘Iitate has reached a contamination level in which evacuation is necessary’ To calculate the spread of radiation using the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information, the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan estimates the discharge rate for radioactive iodine per hour from the Fukushima plant based on radiation measurements taken at various locations. Using those figures to make a simple calculation of the amount of discharge between 6 a.m. March 12 and midnight Wednesday results in figures between 30,000 and 110,000 terabecquerels. Tera is a prefix meaning 1 trillion. The INES defines a level 7 major accident such as Chernobyl as one in which radiation of more than several tens of thousands of terabecquerels is released. [still a Level 6 though?!] Meanwhile, calculations of soil contamination by experts have already produced results that are at the same level as for Chernobyl. Cesium-137 levels of 163,000 becquerels per kilogram of soil was detected in Iitate, Fukushima Prefecture, about 40 kilometers northwest of the Fukushima plant, on March 20. That was the highest figure in the prefecture. According to Tetsuji Imanaka, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute, if the Iitate figure was converted to one square meter, the figure would be 3.26 million becquerels. After the Chernobyl accident, residents who lived in regions with cesium levels of 550,000 becquerels or more per square meter were forcibly moved elsewhere. That's the exact kind of coverup that only undermines their credibility. Not that this is new - they have been covering up flaws in the reactor design for 40 years! Experts Warned of Reactor Flaws Decades Ago The reactor at Vermont Yankee is just one of 23 GE Mark 1’s still operating in the US. They’re the same model as five of the six reactors at Japan’s ill-fated Fukushima Dai Ichi plant. Dale Bridenbaugh knows the GE Mark 1 reactor very well. Back in the 1970’s, he and two other senior GE nuclear engineers quit their jobs and became whistleblowers. Bridenbaugh says the GE 3, as they were called, tried to warn company officials that the Mark 1 containment shell had serious design flaws. IMO, it is human nature to do such coverups; after all, that is what the deniers are trying to do with global warming! LOL MichaelSTL I agree with you again! Up to 96 percent agreement now bud! LOL! Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 18741

83. sirmaelstrom 1:44 AM GMT on March 29, 2011
Quoting but not replying to MichaelSTL in № 68: Here's an interesting graph: Note that oil prices are rising again (also, the WTI oil price is NOT representative of the global oil price; it has been artificially low due to oversupply at Cushing). I guess MichaelSTL is referring to the difference in Brent Crude vs the WTI (West Texas Intermediate) price, as show below: OK. Having posted a link to the Oil Drum now I feel like I really need a shower...Anyway...I would submit that the chief reason that the Brent price is higher is due to the fact that a much higher percentage of Libyan oil is exported to Europe rather than the US: See below... Gadhafi's Libya accounts for less than 1% of U.S. oil imports ...Libya exports most of its oil to Europe and accounts for around 10 percent of European oil imports... Anyway...highly simplistic to try to link a short-term increase in oil prices to recessions; sure they contribute but many other factors should be considered. In particular, the last recession was certainly due more to the collapse of the real estate market and related banking crisis. While the rising the oil price didn't help, I don't think anyone would identify this as the cause. Edited/Added: Actually as the disparity in Brent vs WTI oil began near the beginning of 2011, I should have included information about exports of Egyptian oil as well; Oh well, I'll leave that to the reader...I want to keep everyone involved...LOL! Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

84. sirmaelstrom 1:50 AM GMT on March 29, 2011
Quoting but not replying to MichaelSTL in № 77: Maybe you should just ignore him? BTW, his claims are totally insane, as you can see here. Yes, a study run (and funded) by DENIERS found that NOAA, GISS, etc, are accurately reporting global warming! Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results %u201Cconfirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU%u201D 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, %u201CWe are seeing substantial global warming%u201D and %u201CNone of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.%u201D The goal of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study was to assemble some clever scientists and statisticians %u201Cto resolve current criticism of the [global] temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions.%u201D For a study supposedly aimed at boosting credibility in the surface temperature data record, however, its flaws in conception and operation were beyond head-exploding: 1. It was co-chaired by Richard Muller (author of widely debunked books, blog posts and Wall Street Journal op-eds). Muller himself has actually worked to undermine credibility in well-established science and doesn%u2019t have a great grasp of basic climate science (see here) or energy (see %u201Chere). Pie in the face of the deniers! LOL. The official initial findings of the study he's referring to are given below: "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." From here. Edited: Corrected various grammar errors and specified that the Berkeley Earth findings were "Initial Findings" Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

94. sirmaelstrom 12:46 AM GMT on March 30, 2011
LOL...You're a busy guy tonight, weatherboy1992. I take it you're a Chris Mooney fan? Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood