Showing posts with label Anthony Watts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthony Watts. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Snakes and Ladders with Global Warming

Two years ago there was a strong El Niño, which combined with ongoing global warming, resulted in 2016 being the warmest year on record, in all data sets. February 2016 in particular had the warmest anomaly for any month with GISTEMP showing an anomaly of 1.34°C, two tenths warmer than the previous month which was also a record. In fact using GISTEMP thee 7 months from October 2015 to April 2016 were all more than a degree Celsius above the 1951-1980 base period, the 7 warmest months on record up to that point. Since then monthly temperatures have been up and down, with more months over the 1°C mark in 2017, and never lower than 0.69°C.

The one point this really enforces is that global warming never went away, despite the many cherry picked pauses. But inevitably a record breaking El Niño can be the start of a new pause, or even a cooling trend, when as is inevitable temperatures fall below the trend. But that's too far away for some people who need to distract from how warm the globe has become. Welcome to the two year hiatus, or rather the greatest cooling event on record.

This all started with an article on a website called RealClearMarkets, by someone called Aaron Brown. He appears to be a financial author, and a self confessed libertarian. He asks the question Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place? Now he insists in this article that nothing he says should argue against global warming, that he's simply asking why there is no media attention about this event. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but in any event his arguments are incredibly silly.

He starts,

Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era.

He's already had to add a qualification, it's not the greates event ever, just in the last 100 years. Then he starts describing the big chill in terms of two little chills and claims that if this big drop were to continue we would be back to 1980s levels in a few months. I'm not sure if this is correct, but it probably isn't going to happen, so why mention it now?

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.

Context

The dog that didn't bark in this article or any of thw many posts copying it is any attempt to put this in context. In particular there is not a single graph showing what this cooling event looks like. Nor does he mention that the anomaly in February 2018 was still 0.78°C warmer than the 1951-1980 average, that this was the 7th warmest February on record, or that it is still warmer than 4 years ago. He makes the point that it is colder than February 1998, but doesn't say by only about 0.1°C, or point out that this means that even after the greatest two year cooling event temperatures are only slightly lower than the record breaking temperature of 20 years ago. It would be easy to read this talk of a cooling event as implying temperatures are now cold, when they are still some of the warmest on record.

Here's the graph of GISTEMP data with the start and end points of the greatest teo year cooling event marked in red.

Of course the really obvious point is that this is only the greatest cooling because it started on such a warm month. To put this in even more context, using Brown's technique you should also point out that the two years leading up to this great cooling saw the greatest two year warming event, not just in the past 100 years, but since records began. That this warming event was over 0.8°C, far bigger than his cooling event. More than 0.25°C bigger than the comparative two year warming event of the great El Niño event of 1998.

Then there's this puzzling description of two little chills. Here's a graph of the last few years, with the start and end months marked.

There's a quick drop from the peak month in February (the first little chill), but this actually gives us all of the cooling, temperatures in November 2016 were lower as an anomaly than they currently are. His second little chill ignores the fact there was a rise in temperatures leading up to the second drop. But that just echos what happened in the years leading up to the big chill - it was preceded by a much bigger warming.

At this point it should be realized that all Brown's descriptions of chills are based on simply comparing the start month to the final month, and ignoring everything that happens in between. This is a very bad way of assessing what temperatures are actually doing. Monthly data is very variable and any difference over two years are likely to be down to chance rather than an actual trend. In this case the problem is in Brown claiming that the last two years have set a record. This is true if you ignore a bigger drop 101 years ago, but it depends entirely on this arbitrary two year period. This graph shows both the 1998 and 2016 strong El Niños, with the peak February temperature and the subsequent February tewo years later.

The obvious point here is that February 2000 was somewhat warmer than January 2000. If brown based wanted he could have taken the cooling from February 1998 to January 2000 and found it was greater than that from February 2016 to February 2018. It's arbitrary, and self serving, to call the last two years as the greatest cooling event this century.

A better way of determining cooling trends would be to look at the actual trend over a two year period, using linear regression. This is a standard technique, though it still doesn't make much sense to look at a two year period it does at least take into account all the data over that period. The problem is, if you do that Brown's argument that there was anything unusual about the last two years goes out the window. The fastest recent cooling two year trend was around 17°C / century. This sounds dramatic, but between 1998 and 2000 it was over 23°C/ century. More importantly there have been 7 periods over the last century with two year trends faster than the post 2016 big chill, and many more almost as steep.

This graph shows every 2 year trend over the history of GISTEMP.

Strong two year chill rates happen all the time, just as do strong warming events.

It's about Bias in the Media

Brown's main point is that this is not about the reality of global warming, but about bias in the media.

My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story.

Now I wouldn't disagree that the media has biases, and that in reporting on climate change they are often wrong or simplistic. I'd also agree that it is a problem that reporting on climate change is often limited to mentioning when record breaking years, and focusing on statistical outliers, rather than the more important concerns of ongoing warming.

But, constant complaints of bias often show more about the accusers own bias. They want the things that support there beliefs to be reported.

Brown tries to argue that the recent two year cooling event should be as newsworthy as 2016 being the warmest year on record based entirely on the statistical likelihoods of the two events. He says that the cooling event was a three sigma event, something that only happens rarely, whereas warmest years happen every 8 years or so.

But apart from the fact that the two year cooling event isn't really a 3 sigma event, one you understand the large amount of cherry picking associated with it., the problem is on wanting to decide what stories are covered based only on how likely the event is. He thinks events that are rare are more newsworthy than events that are important. Record breaking hot years might happen 12% of the time, but that's still an important news story given both what it tells us about global warming and the effects on the planet. By contrast his great cooling means nothing except the planet is back on it's regular warming track.

Aftermath

Aaron Brown's piece has had an odd history since it appeared on the 24th April. Almost immediately James Delingpole was ripping it off for Breitbart, in a piece called Earth in ‘Greatest Two-Year Cooling Event in a Century’ Shock, 26 April. This essentially repeats what Brown says, but more forcefully, and adds even more confusion. Delingpole tries to put the shocking event in context:

To put this temperature drop in context, consider that this is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.

This is a common trick, point to a drop lasting a few months, claim it wipes out a certain percentage of the last century of warming, fail to distinguish between long term warming averaged over decades and a single month, and ignore the fact that the actual drop was from a much higher starting point, so that even after this drop nothing has been offset. In fact February 2018 was over a degree warmer than the late 19th century average - far from offsetting any warming it has added 25% to Delingpole's claimed warming.

He finishes by asserting that

As we know from long experience, if it had been the other way round – if the planet had warmed by 0.56 degrees C rather than cooled, the media would have been all over it.

Except we don't have to imagine that, the world did warm by far more than that, between February 2014 and February 2016 the world warmed by over 0.8°C, over 50% more than the shocking cooling, and adding as much warming as all the warming of the past century. Yet no-one seems to have mentioned that fact, as they were too busy talking about how February had been the warmest month on record.

Three weeks after the Brown piece, something called Investor's Business Daily had an editorial called Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling again referencing the Brown piece and complaining that no other news outlet had picked up on it in three weeks. GWPF reproduced the editorial, WUWT copied the GWPF copy of the original without acknowledging either.

The WUWT article prompted me to add some graphs putting the record breaking global cooling in context in their comments. Had an usually large set of angry responses, suggesting I might have hit a nerve. The main complain was that I was using GISTEMP, which I was repeatedly told was garbage, and not caring that that was the data set Brown uses. In fact different data sets won't show the record.

Then we had Tony Heller, suddenly pointing out that there had been the greatest two year drop in temperature in a century - two months after it had happened and without acknowledging Brown's original, or any of the other articles that had already mentioned it. In his post Earth Cooling Fastest In A Century – Since Trump Took Office, he makes a lame joke about how all the cooling happened under Trump.

Last year, scientists said Earth was record hot and it was Donald Trump’s fault. But they had it backwards. The prior warming was Obama’s fault, as Trump wasn’t in office yet. The cooling since 2016 is under Trump’s watch.

Not that it matters but this isn't really true. Most of the cooling happened before Trump was elected. Temperatures went up after his election.

Yet it's strange that whilst every one is complaining about the press not noticing or caring about the greatest two year cooling event, even the sceptical websites failed to report on this momentous event until someone else pointed it out to them.

Thursday, 2 November 2017

Temperature Update - October 2017, UAH 6

As always the first of the month's temperature updates is from the UAH Satellite data, reported by Dr Roy Spencer here. As with last month it's a surprisingly warm month.

The anomaly for October is reported as 0.63°C compared with the 1981 - 2010 base period. This makes it the warmest October in the UAH record, beating the previous record set in 2015 by 0.20°C. The three most recent Octobers have been the three warmest.

This means we are now seeing an unexpected uptick in the rolling 12 month average.

The year-to-date average is now 0.371°C, up from 0.342°C in September.

Predictions

My statistical prediction for 2017, with only two months to go, is 0.357 ± 0.043°C, compared with the prediction from September of 0.333 &pm& 0.058°C.

This rise in the predicted value for 2017 has had a dramatic effect on the ranking probabilities. Two months ago the prediction was below 2010, and it seemed most likely UAH would be the 4th warmest. Last month this had changed to a roughly even chance that 2017 would beat 2010 to finish 3rd. Now the odds on 2017 finishing 3rd have shot up, to over 86%. Intuitively this seems to high to me, as the last two months have been so anomalously warm, and one suspects some sort of correction is due, but for what it's worth here is the table showing the probability for each ranking.

Ranking Probabilities for UAH 6.0, Based on Data to October
Rank Year Anomaly Probability Change
1 2016 0.51 0.00% -0.00%
2 1998 0.48 0.00% -0.00%
3 2010 0.33 86.62% +37.44%
4 2015 0.27 13.38% -36.16%
5 2002 0.22 0.01% -1.26%
6 2005 0.2 0.00% -0.01%

Footnote

The fact that satellite data has been increasing whilst surface data has been decreasing, over the last couple of months, has been noted by Dr Spencer and Anthony Watts. Only a day before the latest UAH results were released Watt's Up With That were insisting global temperatures were cooling, based entirely on surface data from HadCRUT.

I've no idea why there is this apparent divergence. It maybe that the lower troposphere is gaining more heat than the surface, or it might be some error. If it is an error I suspect it will more likely be a problem with the satellite data than the surface data. But it is interesting seeing the so called skeptics, suddenly showing some much needed skepticism to the satellite data, and even emphasizing that satellites are not measuring the same thing as the surface data sets.

Friday, 1 April 2016

Watts Up With Velikovsky

And as theories go this was all very fine and pleasant until Veet Voojagig suddenly claimed to have found this planet, and to have worked there for a while driving a limousine for a family of cheap green retractables, whereupon he was taken away, locked up, wrote a book, and was finally sent into tax exile, which is the usual fate reserved for those who are determined to make a fool of themselves in public.

Douglas Adams

Introduction

Among the inspirations for Conventional Signs are some of Martin Gardner's essays on skepticism, in particular those found in his book Science: Good. Bad, and Bogus. The earliest essay in that collection, written in 1951, called The Hermit Scientist describes a number of individuals who have come up with theories that challenged established ideas, and for good reason were not accepted by scientists. The second person to be mentioned in that essay is Dr Immanuel Velikovsky (the first is L Ron Hubbard). Gardner sums up Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision thus:

A few months before Hubbard's revelation, the Macmillan Company published Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. The book throws together a jumbled mass of data to support the preposterous theory that a giant comet once erupted from the planet Jupiter, passed close to the earth on two occasions, then settled down as Venus. The first visit to the earth of this erratic comet was precisely at the moment Moses stretched out his hand and caused the Red Sea to divide. The manna which fell from the skies shortly thereafter was a precipitate, fortunately edible, of suspended elements in the celestial visitor's tail. Later the comet's return coincided with Joshua's successful attempt to make the sun and moon stand still. The miracles of both Moses and Joshua were the result, Velikovksy informs us, of a temporary cessation of the earth's spin.

Gardner's description is only really the tip of the iceberg - Worlds in Collision also suggests that flies might have traveled on Venus to reach Earth, Mars was also knocked out of it's orbit and came into close contact with Earth, causing yet more biblical catastrophes, and he hints that if any of this is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics, then Newton is wrong and the planets are governed by some mysterious form of electro-magnatism that allows of the events he describes to just happen. WiC also makes it clear that this is only the start and there are more revelations to be published in future books. These would included ideas such as Saturn exploding and drenching the earth, and ancient astronauts visiting the early earth.

Although Velikovsky's work is a tissue of absurdities, and has been recognized as such by every geologist and astronomer in the country, it is astonishing how many who reviewed the book were caught off guard by the author's persuasive rhetoric. John J. O'Neill, science editor of the "New York Herald Tribune," described the book as "a magnificent piece of scholarly historical research." Horace Kallen, editor of the "Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences," wrote, "The vigor of the scientific imagination, the boldness of construction and the range of inquiry and information fill me with admiration." Ted Thackrey, editor of the "New York Compass," suggested that Velikovsky's discoveries "may well rank him in contemporary and future history with Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Darwin, Einstein. . . ." And the book received enthusiastic endorsement by those two eminent scientists, Clifton Fadiman and Fulton Oursler.

Martin Gardener - The Hermit Scientist

In case there's any confusion about that last sentence, neither Clifton Fadiman nor Fulton Oursler were scientists

Gardener was wrong in one important respect - his 1951 essay concludes:

Thus it is that probably no scientist of importance will present the bewildered public with detailed proofs that the earth did not twice stop whirling in Old Testament times ... The current flurry of discussion about Velikovsky and Hubbard will soon subside, and their books will begin to gather dust on library shelves.

Neither Velikovsky nor Hubbard disappeared. Velikovsky became increasing popular especially in the early 70s, when it was claimed that many of his predictions were being confirmed by space exploration. Also, there were detailed debunkings of his work by popular scientists, most noticeably Carl Sagan. His chapter in Brocca's Brain is a very detailed debunking of the astronomical problems in WiC, though it seems like quite a large sledgehammer to crack a very nutty nut.

But Velikiovsky ideas did die out after the 70s, and tempting as it might be to draw comparisons between current nonsense, such as Global Warming Doubters, and Velikovsky, I don't think it would be remotely fair.

But it turns out, thanks to Watts Up With That, I don't need to draw the comparison, they've done it themselves.

WUWT in Chaos

Chaos - G.F.Watts

There have so far been three articles posted on Watts Up With That within a 10 day period, mentioning Velikovsky.

Sensational Scientific Speculation

The first was called The Complicity of Journals and Magazines in Pushing Flawed IPCC Climate Science, archived here. In this essay, Ball says that science journals are too commercial and publish pseudo-science and sensational articles in order to boost flagging sales. But then complains that Macmillan dropped publication of the entirely scientific and unsensational Worlds in Collision

... they [Macmillan] were the publishers involved with the Velikovsky travesty, one of the most egregious examples of the conflicts that occur between publishers and a search for the truth.

He then goes on to say that Carl Sagan an early promoter of human CO2 caused global warming, felt so threatened by Velikovsky that he published a book on the subject. Ball concludes that He (presumably Sagan) is not to be believed on anything.

This post produced a lot of reaction. Those hostile to the views of WUWT couldn't believe their luck. Gavin Schmidt tweeted:

Which prompted the classic response from Garath S Jones

Hot Whopper had a typically caustic post - The Worlds Collide at WUWT - Astronomy is a Hoax!

In the comments section of WUWT there was both delight from supporters of Velikovsky and dismay from the more level headed doubters. This lead to Ball posting this comment:

Wrong! I am not pushing Velikovsky. Why don't you read carefully without automatically and almost immediately putting on your blinders? I was using Velikovsky to illustrate how mainstream academia reacts when somebody dares to suggest anything other than what they push. Step outside their prevailing wisdom and they disclose their tunnel vision and prejudices quickly and nastily. Harlow Shapley's despicable behavior in the matter was exposed by the letter he wrote to Macmillan threatening wto get all academics to withdraw their textbooks. The letter was obtained and revealed by the Harvard Hasty Pudding Club.

It's curious that he only mentions Harlow Shapely at this point, but Carl Sagan in the article. Shapely in the 50s organized the boycott of Macmillan that resulted in them dropping the book. Sagan in the 70s was highly critical of this action.

Repetition of Half-Truths

This led to the second post by Ball, called Scientific Elitism Is Fundamentally Destructive To Science, archived here

In this Ball again complains that he was falsely accused of pushing Velikovsky, but spends most of the post seeming to do just that. The part where he says he isn't pushing Velikovsky starts:

The reaction to my recent reference to Immanuel Velikovsky was knee-jerk, ill-informed, and a classic example of scientific elitism. I suspect that like so many such reactions they are by people who read or know little about the events and issues involved. I also suspect because it occurs all the time, that definitive opinions are based on a minor matter unrelated to the whole story. As G. K. Chesterton explained,

The thing which the world suffers just now more than from any other evil is not the assertion of falsehood, but the endless repetition of half-truths.

I was falsely accused, along with Anthony Watts, of pushing Velikovsky.

Ironically the unsourced quote from Chesterton is itself a half-truth. Chesterton said it was England that was suffering, not the world.

It was a world in which painters were trying to be novelists, and novelists trying to be historians, and musicians doing the work of schoolmasters, and sculptors doing the work of curates. That is a view which has some truth in it, both as a description of the actual state of things and as involving an interesting and suggestive philosophy of the arts. But a good deal of harm may be done by ceaselessly repeating to ourselves even a true and fascinating fashionable theory, and a great deal of good by endeavouring to realize the real truth about an older one. The thing from which England suffers just now more than from any other evil is not the assertion of falsehoods, but the endless and irrepressible repetition of half-truths. There is another side to every historic situation, and that often a startling one; and the other side of the Victorian view of art, now so out of mode, is too little considered. The salient and essential characteristic of Watts and men of his school was that they regarded life as a whole. They had in their heads, as it were, a synthetic philosophy which put everything into a certain relation with God and the wheel of things.

Ostensibly the point of this post is to claim that a scientific elite tries to suppress theories that threaten the orthodox believe. I don't agree with this, and his article is confused and contradictory, but the main issue is he continues to use Velikovsky as an example of the heretic being suppressed by the elite, and in so doing gives the impression that Velikovsky was right, or at least plausible.

Anthony Watts added a disclaimer to this article insisting he's never ... never supported Velikovsky's ideas ... in Worlds in Collision, but he does ... support discussing them in the context of learning ....

Rightly Labeled Ridiculous

Three days later there was a joint post from Watts and Ball, called A response to being Mann-handled, archived here, and is described as a Full Disclosure – by Tim Ball and Anthony Watts. This tries to set the record straight, insisting that neither Watts nor Ball agree with Velikovsky. But it distracts from this by going for a full out attack on Michael E Mann, permanent bogyman for the WUWT. Mann's crime in all this was to post a tweet saying that Ball and Watts subscribed to Velikovsky.

Mann's accusation is completely false and indicates he either failed to read the article or if he did, failed to understand its purpose. The objective of the original article and follow up was to show how self-appointed elitists hinder the advance of science. A majority who made written comments about the article understood and agreed with the premise.

Even this full disclosure finds it difficult to say straight out that Velikovsky was wrong

Again, for the record, neither of us support Velikovsky's views on planetary motion . Some of them are rightly labeled as ridiculous. However, to claim that we do, simply because the articles used him as an example of how some in science turn spiteful when confronted with ideas they see as threatening, is wrong, and the elitist premise is well illustrated by the ugly behavior of Dr. Mann and others.

But in the same article they say:

We pointed out that he worked with Einstein, who knew his claims and encouraged him. We also pointed out that some who initially attacked his work, like Professor Hess, later conceded that many of his predictions were confirmed .

Which could be read as being a little supportive.

To be fair, it seems obvious that Watts is genuinely embarrassed that he allowed Ball to use such an example. He says in the comments section that he was wasn't very familiar with Velikovsky's work when Ball submitted the article, and if he had been he would have asked Ball to find a better example. I'm more curious about what Ball really feels about Velikovsky.

Ball's Opinion of Velikovsky

Ball claims that Velikovsky was merely the example to illustrate the behavior of the scientific elite, and in no way did this show support for Velikovsky's views. Leaving aside the premise of the scientific elite, the claim that Ball only regards Velikovsky as an example of elitist persecution seems dubious to me. Here are some of my reasons for this doubt:

  1. If you do want to attack the suppression of ideas from a scientific elite, why use a case like Velikovsky if you think his ideas are ridiculous? It undermines your case if the work that was not accepted by the scientific elite is wrong, and worse if it is as ridiculously wrong as Velikovsky's.
  2. If you are deliberately using Velikovsky to make a point that no matter how wrong someone is they should still be given a fair hearing, why not make that clear from the start? A simple statement such as I completely disagree with Velikovsky's theories, but I will defend to my death his right to a serious publisher, would have avoided any confusion.
  3. Nowhere in either of the first two posts does Ball indicate any thing specifically wrong with Velikovsky. The closest he even gets to accepting Velikovsky might have made any mistakes is when he says Sagan was more wrong on fundamental issues than Velikovsky. What he thinks Sagan got more wrong than Velikovsky was CO2 causing global warming.
  4. Throughout the posts, Ball uses phrases that might give the impression he supports Velikovsky, despite his claims he doesn't. For example,

    As a result of Velikovsky's research, done with thoroughness and precision, he discovered anomalies that didn't fit the prevailing sequence of events.

    Velikovsky's story is fascinating because of his innovative thinking and accuracy of his predictions.

    He quotes Michael Goodspeed:

    More than 5 decades after the Velikovsky firestorm, questions first posed by Velikovsky can no longer be ignored. At stake here is not just the billions of dollars NASA has wasted chasing chimeras, but the very integrity of scientific exploration. Also at stake is the ability of the sciences to attract and inspire new generations. And nothing is more inspirational than a sense of being on the edge of discovery.

    No matter the outcome of this long-standing battle, the time of reckoning is at hand. The voice of Velikovsky's ghost WILL be heard.

  5. He objects to Sagan and Gould criticizing Velikovsky's works, yet they are only confirming what Ball claims to agree with, that Velikovsky's ideas are ridiculous.
  6. In the comments section Ball never complains about any post supporting Velikovsky, but does write a long comment in response to others:

    Some of the comments show the ignorance of their author. For example, the claim that V was not a scientist by any measure, contradicts his formal education and life work. He worked and communicated extensively with Einstein on matters of science, in particular electromagnetism. Einstein had no problems with his credentials or abilities, and if he is good enough for Einstein he is good enough for me.

    Then there are those who ask what predictions he made that were correct. This only confirms they never read his work or subsequent discoveries and discussions. If they did they would find his predictions that flew in the face of the then scientifically held wisdom.

  7. He compare the history of Velikovsky with those who oppose the theory of CO2 causing global warming. For example

    The complexity of the corruption by the few scientists who hijacked climate science is revealed by comparison. They quickly established their views as the prevailing truth through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science, but also misusing basic science. They isolated anyone who challenged either part of their false 'offical' science in the same way Velikovsky was marginalized.

    But Ball is accepting the official science was correct in the case of Velikovsky.

Watt about Scientific Elitism

Ignoring Velikovsky, the argument of the second article was that scientific elitism is damaging to science. This is an old claim that I find unconvincing. It's an argument that is used by people who are wrong, are rejected or ignored by people who are in the best position to know they are wrong. It's always so much easier to believe that the reason your arguments were rejected is not because you were wrong, but because there's a cabal of scientists, who cannot allow your views to be accepted for fear it would undermine their authority. It's the appeal to the romance of the heretic over that of a reactionary orthodoxy, which in science is rarely correct. As G.K. Chesterton explained -

The word heresy not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word orthodoxy not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical.

G.K. Chesterton - Heretics

And yes, I am taking Chesterton out of context to emulate Ball, and the use of this quote should in no way be taken to mean I agree with any of Chesterton's views.

As far as the idea of the scientific heretic, Martin Gardner summed up the problem

When Renaissance science first began to free itself from metaphysical biases, it was the rule rather than the exception for courageous pioneers to find their work greeted with derision by their colleagues. Galileo had to battle not only church authorities but fellow scientists who were more preoccupied with Aristotle than with an experimental determination of how the world did, in fact, behave. As Aristotle's scientific authority declined, however, opposition to new ideas in science became more confined to areas where science clashed with Christian doctrine. Since the turn of the century, even this area of conflict has become remarkably small, and widespread opposition by scientists to a legitimate theory, based on verifiable evidence and cogent reasoning, is an increasing rarity. For a contemporary scientist, often the quickest way to fame is to overturn a widely held theory. Einstein's work on relativity is an excellent illustration of how easily a revolutionary hypothesis can meet with almost immediate serious response, careful testing, and ultimate acceptance. Of course there are exceptions ... But, if anything, science today leans backward in the friendly consideration of bizarre hypotheses.

Martin Gardener - The Hermit Scientist

Moreover, Tim Ball's articles, especially the second, seem contradictory and careless. It would take far too long to go over every problem, in many ways he's a lot like Velikovsky in that respect. But a few issues are:

  • Ball objects to pejorative and subjective adjectives, such as radical and notorious, but then uses phrases like indoctrinated by formal education and describes scientific specialization as the bastions of dogmatism and intellectual tunnel vision.
  • He objects to Velikovsky being described as a catastrophist, but Velikovsky constantly uses the word catastrophy throughout his work, and describes his ideas as theory of cosmic catastrophism.
  • He says Velikovsky was born in the Soviet Union. In fact he was born in 1895, 20 years before there was a Soviet Union.
  • He claims the church promoted and protected the Ptolemaic system for 2000 years, which is at best a wild exaggeration. The Ptolemaic system hasn't even existed for 2000 years.
  • He says that Carl Sagan and Stephen J Gould are both part of the scientific elite. Yet both were popularizers of science, wrote popular books and Gould was frequently attacked for his unorthodox ideas. Moreover, both explicitly disagreed with the actions of Harlow Shapely in trying to get Macmillan to drop WiC. Sagan was particularly harsh on this action, calling it a disgraceful attempt by some who called themselves scientists to suppress his writings.

Friday, 4 March 2016

Watts Does Not Like Upward Adjustements

That didn't take long. I wondered how the skeptics would react to the changes in RSS 4.0, when they had been so un-skeptical over the changes to UAH 6.0 beta. That same day Anthony Watts publishes a post called The 'Karlization' of global temperature continues - this time RSS makes a massive upwards adjustment, in which he basically accuses Carl Mears, chief scientist of RSS, of fraud in changing adjusting the RSS trend upwards. Some extracts give the flavor:

Forget homogenization, that is so 2010. If the pause is bothering you and your belief is that there must be more warming, we only need to find it in the data, then what you need is “Karlization”, named after director of the National Climatic Data Center, (now NCEI) Tom Karl who pulled a fast one this summer trying to adjust the past down, so the present would be warmer.

Now we have a new player in the Karlization process – Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) in Santa Rosa, CA. This is a private business that just happens to make a satellite based climate data set that is similar to the UAH satellite data set produced by Roy Spencer and John Christy.

Readers may recall a video produced by the execrable “Climate Crock of the Week” activist Peter Sinclair that we covered here where the basic premise was that the satellites are lying.

Clearly, he's miffed. So what to do? Taking a cue from the other Karl, he publishes a paper and claims that new and improved adjustments have found that missing warming.

I like the irony in this. Peter Sinclair is vilified for claiming the satellites are lying, yet Anthony Watts is doing exactly that, claiming you cannot believe RSS 4.0.

The only supporting evidence for this claim is a letter from Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy (of UAH), who say they spotted a problem with the adjustments.

From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU ...see their Fig. 7c. They just leave it in.

Fair enough, I cannot really comment on whether this is a reasonable issue. But note that although it's been used for almost a year without criticism, UAH 6 could have just as many problems. We don't know as the methods have yet to be published.

What Watts' objection to the new RSS data really shows, is just how wrong the claims of impeccability for the satellite data are. Anthony Watts himself has objected to anyone criticizing satellite data, calling them satellite deniers, presumably with a sense of irony. The claim made by those who insist that satellite data be used in preference to ground based data is that satellites are unbiased, state-of-the-art and highly expensive. See here for example. All of which may be correct, but actually trying to calculate a global temperature from them requires complicated and fallible calculations, and these are built on many assumptions.

The fact that both UAH and RSS have made adjustments, which have resulted in major changes, proves that they cannot always be that accurate. If you take the Watts' line then UAH 5.6 was completely flawed, but we can trust 6.0 to be accurate - RSS 3.3 was the best data of all, but the person responsible is a fraud.

And as a passing thought, note that the objection above to RSS 4.0 is that it includes a satellite showing spurious warming. In other words, the satellites are lying.

Updates

Carl Mears has now posted more details of the RSS V4.0 adjustments here. This also seeks to address the flaw Roy Spencer claimed to have found:

First, we note that our treatment of NOAA-14, except for the diurnal adjustment, is unchanged from V3.3, so we do not understand how it can be the cause of two thirds the change. ... Clearly, the change in the diurnal cycle is the main cause of any differences between V3.3 and V4.0.

We agree that there is a problem with either NOAA-14 or NOAA-15, or both. We explicitly discuss the problem with the NOAA-14/NOAA-15 overlap in the paper. We do not know if the problem is due to NOAA-14 or NOAA-15. If we assume that all the drift is due to NOAA-14, as Dr. Spencer would like us to do, we can eliminate the use of NOAA-14 after 1999 so that its (potentially erroneous) trend during the overlap period does not affect the overall results. If we do this, the overall trend is decreased by 0.019K/decade.

...

These results are reported in the paper, and the differences between them should be viewed as part of the uncertainty in the final results. For the final dataset, we used case 3 where the errors are shared between NOAA-14 and NOAA-15, which is reasonable because we do not know the source of the problem.

Roy Spencer seems to agree with this in an update to his original blog post:

Chip Knappenberger has pointed out that, while the warming in RSS v4 versus UAH v6 might be as described above, when RSS v4 is compared to RSS v3.3, the increase in warming might be mostly due to their new diurnal cycle adjustment. In other words, the NOAA-14 calibration issue was also in their v3.3, but maybe it was obscured more by diurnal drift adjustment issues.

Some additional links:

Hot Whopper has a long look at Watts' and Spencer's claims - 101 conspiracy theories about troposphere temperature: the RSS love affair is over

Stoat - The RSS Middle Tropospheric Temperature Now V4.0, is much shorter, but makes interesting points about how professional the RSS presentation is compared with UAH.