Category Archives: Numbers are Tricky

Carbon Emissionaries

Posted on by
Reply

“Carbon Emissionaries“. Willis Eschenbach has another stab at discrediting carbon trading.

Can you believe that the trading value for carbon credits has fluctuated? Actually, I believe that’s how commodities markets naturally work.

Carbon credits are really low right now, so the whole thing’s a failure! So traders are waiting out some regulatory issues that will affect the future value of carbon credits. Big deal.

Do you realise that per capita carbon emissions in the EU, where they have a few carbon credit markets in operation, have risen while in the US, where they don’t have carbon credit markets, they have fallen? If you actually look at Willis’ charts you’ll see that the EU’s per capita fuel use has climbed substantially, but the carbon emissions? Not so much. So in effect they’re getting more industry out of each tonne of CO2 (increasing efficiency) but because they seem to have higher industrial activity the CO2 has actually increased a bit too.

I’m not going to embrace this because the “intensity-based” way of setting CO2 targets is really just a dodge (see my own Canadian government’s position for example), but it looks like the EU is managing to moderate the effect of industrial activity. Two steps forward but one step back is better than standing still.

Tropical England

Posted on by
Reply

“Tropical England“. Steven Goddard returns with some insight into an information campaign by the UK’s National Trust. They warn that predicted temperature rises due to AGW will lead to dramatic changes in England’s vegetation and crops. Think Portugal; drier and without pastureland. Steven says they’ll love it! This is the “what if climate change is good?” approach.

An English Garden in 2080 with a 4°C rise? © Rob Collins.

After an obligatory round of weather forecast bashing, he waves away England’s 0.5°C of warming as “likely due to UHI effects” but neglects to offer any statistical basis for his unsubstantiated claim.

So there hasn’t been any warming, but if there is warming it’s going to be nice. Have I got that right Steven?

GISScapades

Posted on by
9

“GISScapades“. Willis Eschenbach tries to support Joe Bastardi’s ignorance with accusations about Arctic surface station temperature extrapolation. It boils down to this claim: “No data available? No problem, just build in some high temperatures …”

Willis can make up some number series that show decent correlations, which is very clever of him. But it doesn’t undermine the fact that the surface station data used to represent the Arctic Ocean is real. His chart also deliberately minimizes the legitimate overlap of the two dozen surface stations that are used to extrapolate into the Arctic Ocean. There is no theoretical surface station being generated in the center of the Arctic Ocean as Willis tries to insinuate.

The most damning thing that Willis can actually say at the end of all this is (bolding mine): “Their trends may not be similar at all.” All that waving of charts and polar maps, and this is what it boils down to?

Quadruple those surface station ranges and tell me how poorly represented the Arctic Ocean is (from wattsupwiththat).

Of course if you want to avoid the extrapolation, just use a different data set. There are several. They show similar results regardless of whether they include extrapolations for the unavailable Arctic Ocean temperature data.

Or you could use satellite data and avoid the whole issue.

Why Joe Bastardi sees red: A look at Sea Ice and GISTEMP and starting choices

Posted on by
1

“Why Joe Bastardi sees red: A look at Sea Ice and GISTEMP and starting choices“. Groan. Anthony Watts is promoting another “simple question” from Joe Bastardi: “If it’s warmer than normal, you should not have an increase in ice.” Joe, the chart is of temperature anomalies not temperature. So even though its warmer in the arctic that doesn’t mean that it’s warm. Joe Romm’s post on Climate Progress takes this on more fully – “Accuweather’s “expert long-range forecaster” Joe Bastardi has now firmly established himself as the least informed, most anti-scientific meteorologist in the world.”

GISS surface temperature anomaly, Dec-Jan-Feb 2010.

Naturally Anthony’s totally onboard with Joe Bastardi’s dark hints about conspiracy theories and “magical readjustment”. Also, he claims that using red to denote positive temperature anomalies is deceptive.

Anthony also posts a blizzard of charts which boil down to an exercise in picking a baseline date at a time when some of the global warming has already occurred to reduce the apparent temperature anomaly. Why didn’t he just set today as the baseline and declare NO temperature anomaly? If you’re going to misuse data might as well go all-in.

He the cooly admits that “anomalies can show anything you want based of choosing the base period.” We know, Anthony, you just gave us a master-class in biased analysis!

Loehle on Hoffman et al and CO2 trajectories

Posted on by
6

“Loehle on Hoffman et al and CO2 trajectories” Anthony Watts learns that the “National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.” forestry lobby group has funded a paper by Craig Loehle in Atmospheric Environment, a ‘low-impact‘ air pollution journal.

Loehle whips up some arbitrary equations that seem to be equally good at matching historical atmospheric CO2 concentrations as the IPCC’s, so clearly nothing can be concluded from the IPCC’s ‘scary’ predictions.

Simple equations make such smooth curves! (Loehle, 2010. Fig. 3)

The IPCC’s predictions based on physical and chemical atmospheric science. That’s more relevant than pulling numbers out of thin air and pretending you’ve studied something in its scientific context. This is looks like statistical game-playing to me.

’science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.’

Posted on by
1

’science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation.’ Anthony Watts starts learning about statistics! Will he be shocked to learn that failing the 95% confidence interval doesn’t mean that something is false? (See the whole “no warming since 1995” tomfoolery.)

[Note that an excellent analysis of this can also be found at Open Mind. Tamino makes the point that the author’s main concern is with medical studies and with understanding the implications of the null hypothesis.]

P value = probability of an observed result arising only from chance.

Anthony has copy-and-pasted science journalist Tom Siegfried’s ScienceNews article “Odds Are, It’s Wrong“. This rather loose discussion of the flaws of statistical analysis serves as a jumping-off point for more of Anthony’s misplaced accusations. Short version: poor statistical analysis can obscure correct scientific interpretations. Here’s the “dirty secret” part:

Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted.

Ouch! I think he’s talking to you Anthony! Here’s another good quote from the article (italics mine), especially in light of Anthony endless insinuations about the “Mann’s tree ring proxy hockey stick” (he can’t even get six words in a row right):

Replicating a result helps establish its validity more securely, but the common tactic of combining numerous studies into one analysis, while sound in principle, is seldom conducted properly in practice.

Guess what Mann’s climate analysis was? A combination of numerous studies. Not just tree ring proxies. This is why is stands up so well, and why the denialists are so desperate to tear it down.

It’s the blob (anomaly)!

Posted on by
2

“It’s the blob (anomaly)!“. After years of touting regional variations as proof that Global Warming isn’t happening (or is natural, or is temporary, or is really cooling, or whatever other line of patter suits the moment), Anthony Watts has decided he likes picking on anomalous regions. (This seems to actually be an uncredited repost of a blog post by Roger Pielke Sr.)

Suddenly, if it's not happening everywhere it isn't happening anywhere. Someone's changed their tune.

I suppose you’ve gotta say something when even Roy Spencer and John Christy have to report that February 2010 was the 2nd warmest February in 32 years…

Devastating non-trends in US Climate

Posted on by
2

“Devastating non-trends in US Climate“. The US government is lying to us when the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force says “Climate change is already having “pervasive, wide-ranging” effects“.

Anthony Watts knows this. So he presents Warren Meyer’s careful selection of trivial regional charts stripped of meaningful analysis and intended to convince suggestible eyeballs as a counter.

Of course the only link Anthony provides is some news coverage of the report, where his ditto-heads can flood the comments.

Spencer: Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious

Posted on by
4

“Spencer: Direct Evidence that Most U.S. Warming Since 1973 Could Be Spurious“. Dr. Roy Spencer is like the Energizer Bunny on his sudden area of expertise, Urban Heat Islands. He just keeps going and going and going, and Anthony Watts just keeps printing it and printing it and printing it. A perfect symbiosis.

Dr. Spencer does finally admit that his analysis “is meant more for stimulating thought and discussion, and does not equal a peer-reviewed paper.” Let’s just say that the “could” in his report title leaves a lot of wiggle room, especially in light of his final words: “Caveat emptor.”

I particularly enjoyed this bit of ‘hard science’:

There is a clear need for new, independent analyses of the global temperature data…the raw data, that is. As I have mentioned before, we need independent groups doing new and independent global temperature analyses — not international committees of Nobel laureates passing down opinions on tablets of stone.

He manages to call for delaying action, imply that the data has been tampered with, and cast wild accusations against science in just two sentences! Someone’s wound a bit tight.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”

Posted on by
1

More "truth" from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”. Dr. Nicola Scafetta has a “booklet” available from the same unbiased source as Anthony’s own disproved publications, the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Once again, it’s all because of the sun (well, at least 60%). Scafetta even tries to recruit the fraudulent “Oregon Petition”. Oh, Climategate is also proof. Anthony usually give the worst of the solar stuff a wide berth as he’s been caught out too many times.

Anthony’s readers seem to lean towards respect for the booklet’s ‘profundity’, but knowledgeable commenters (such as Dr. Leif Svalgaard) dismiss the paper as worthless.