Comments on: More Evidence of Climate Stabilization

By: Klimawandel: Offener Leserbrief an Spiegel Online » Frank Wettert

Klimawandel: Offener Leserbrief an Spiegel Online » Frank Wettert — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:52:33 +0000

[...] als Irreführung der Medien und der Politik zu betrachten, als fundierte Wissenschaft. Quelle: Niche Modeling, kleine Abbildung: University of [...]

By: mondo45

mondo45 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:37:35 +0000

You are probably aware of the misleading way in which CSIRO reported rising sea levels around Australia some time ago, as pointed out by John Daly. I made a word file of the relevant links and data which makes it very evident that CSIRO is prepared to compromise its reputation in its public presentation of such data. If you send me an e:mail, I will send you my file.

In brief though, CSIRO report 25 year changes in sea level at 28 stations around Australia. Then they take a simple average to present the average rise in Australian sea level over that period. Only problem is that the data is heavily influenced by three outliers – Port Adelaide Inner, Port Adelaide Outer (yes really) and Fremantle. Googling will give you data from other CSIRO departments that show that Adelaide and Fremantle are subject to local land subsidence issues which give a misleading impression of sea level rise.

By: Niche Modeling » Bias Examples

Niche Modeling » Bias Examples — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:29:56 +0000

[...] Finally we have publication bias, the selective publication of the findings of trials with certain results: Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. … but it is exceptionally hard to get these papers published also. The publishers compare it to IPCC’s modeling, and say, “Oh, this isn’t the IPCC.” Well, luckily it’s not! But you cannot say that. This interview has examples of all the forms of research bias mentioned previously. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of these claims as I have not researched them myself. It is presented to show that the concerns with bias in global warming research are almost identical to the issues of concern in the clinical studies medicine. These concerns gave rise, after a series of scandals such as the Thalidomide tragedy, to the EBP movement. From the point of view good scientific practice, and the diminishing evidence of global warming, the IPCC is looking more like a 60’s drug company: an organization with a product to sell, involved in unscrupulous marketing of its product in the absence of evidence of both safety and efficacy. [...]

By: admin

admin — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:07:25 +0000

Yes, that is completely different to the chart I made in March. The seasonality removal is very aggressive.

By: Franko

Franko — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:32:43 +0000

aviso.oceanobs.com – Last month the sea level chart showed 5 months down, Now it has been revised up. Instrument correction or seasonal adjustments ?

Would be informative if aviso also charted the unadjusted.

By: Niche Modeling » Global Temperature Falls Sharply in May 2008

Niche Modeling » Global Temperature Falls Sharply in May 2008 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:16:26 +0000

[...] Global anomalies are now at levels experienced in 1850 at the start of the CRU record. Global temperature is clearly moving down as sea level, stratospheric temperatures and other long term integrators of global temperatures suggest. I will have more to say about the Rahmstorf et.al. (Science Brevia, 4 May 2007, p709 [1]) view that the climate “may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates”, and its use as the sole source for the Interim Report of the Garnaut Review to advocate prompt and extreme action on carbon emissions (Section 2.4 Consequences of Climate Change, Observed Climate Change). Meanwhile, “Houston, we seem to have another problem.” Hat tip to Anthony Watts [...]

By: Niche Modeling »

Niche Modeling » — Sat, 03 May 2008 09:03:54 +0000

[...] Niche Modeling » Rahmstorf 7 Finale @ More Evidence of Climate Stabilization [...]

By: Niche Modeling » Rahmstorf 7 Finale

Niche Modeling » Rahmstorf 7 Finale — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:47:27 +0000

[...] This paper claimed to show that: The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates. By way of recap, this paper figured prominently in the Interim Report of the Garnaut Review where it is clearly used as a source of mainstream scientific opinion: “Developments in mainstream scientific opinion on the relationship between emissions, accumulations and climate outcomes, and the Review’s own work on future business-as-usual global emissions, suggest that the world is moving towards high risks of dangerous climate change more rapidly than has generally been understood.” Interest in the current weather has been growing since people have been observing either sharp declines in temperatures since last year, or relative stability in temperatures over about the last 10 years and wondering how these fit into the picture of global warming. I did some posts putting it into context showing last years temperature drop was not unusual here, that a particular 10 year period has been flat here, and that a number of climate indicators are showing decadal stability here. The Blackboard has been spear-heading rigorous statistical methods for checking IPCC projections and finding post 2001 TAR consistently falsified by climate trends. Contradicting these findings was the paper by Rahmstorf et al 2007, published in Science, by seven of the leading members of the IPCC scientific team. So, I started to audit this paper to see if this paper does in fact provide a more reliable perspective on the issue of whether climate is changing faster or slower than expected. A number of bloggers ‘raised concerns’ about the vague description of the methodology, and argued at Niche Modeling and The Blackboard that there were important sources of uncertainty unaccounted for. Other blogs picked up the issue including Peter Gallagher and Mark Lawson. Stefan Rahmstorf and I exchanged comments at RealClimate.org and here. His main defense was that the end point uncertainty would only affect the last 5 points of the smoothed trend line with an 11 point embedding. Here the global temperatures were smoothed using a complex method called Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA). I gave examples of SSA and other methods where the end point uncertainty affected virtually ALL points in the smoothed trend line, and particularly more than 5 end points. Stefan clearly had little idea of how SSA worked. His final message, without an argument, was: [Response: If you really think you’d come to a different conclusion with a different analysis method, I suggest you submit it to a journal, like we did. I am unconvinced, though. -stefan] So much for the recap. Keep in mind that the purpose of a scientific exchange like this is to clarify the points of agreement and disagreement and attempt to arrive at a resolution on the validity of the claims. Note the problem I raised is not the only obvious problem either, but just one I worked on. This is not meant to be a personal process. I am grateful for someone to point out errors in my work and would try to understand them, as I would rather not be blowing smoke unintentionally. This example highlights the power of numbers to resolve an issue. Stefan can have his opinion, and I have opinions too, but the thing I love is the power of numbers to arbitrate and discriminate, and ultimately eliminate the unjustified ones. Also I was wanting to address the Garnaut Review, as I feel that they are abrogating a duty of diligence by not paying more critical attention to papers such as these. Here was an opportunity to give a specific example of a paper with flaws so obvious that it SHOULD have been dismissed by anyone with statistical training, or background knowledge. So thank you readers for your patience with this process. I have put a submission into the Garnaut Review supported by documentation from the web sites involved. Here is a good example of the use of blogs. As the time for comments has closed, I could not submit a critique to Science. It is also better to have a through and open discussion of the issues at hand anyway, before rushing to publication of critical comments, so both can gain a deeper understanding of the finer points. It is unfortunate that Stefan cut the discussion off, but to his credit he was responsive to the actual concerns in the replies he did make. [...]

By: admin

admin — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:09:02 +0000

Lucia, I read the sea height chapter recently too. I thought it was rather measured in their assessment of the data and knowledge. They have an ongoing issue (since at least TAR 2001) with the measured rises exceeding the expected rise calculated from the components, which they attribute largely to instrument bias. This is a perspective that Rahmstorf etal fail to mention, preferring to spin it as ‘contributions rapidly increasing’. Pielke had a discussion about what constituted a contribution or not. Its another big talking point. But irrespective of that, sea levels are actually DECLINING, as I believe the satellite data.

By: lucia

lucia — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:56:16 +0000

That last paragraph: Of course.

I saw that flattish spot in the sea level rise in the graphic in Roger Pielke’s paper. I immediately went to the AR4 to see if I could find any concrete predictions, but they must have just decided that predicting sea level rise is impossible. (I found predictions for thermal expansion rates but not the overall rise.)