the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Confirmation Again

Posted by Jeff Id on August 25, 2011

This post is due to a reader who brought my attention to the recently published critiques of Zhao and Running almost a year ago.

I sort of lost my cool with an obviously bad paper some time ago.   Charlatans of Science Zhao and Running.  Looking back, I could have worded it better but they published a paper claiming the following:

After a 6 percent increase in the 1980s and 1990s, plant productivity declined 1 percent in the last 10 years.

I criticized it quite roundly. In fact, my mom pointed out that it demeaned me when I got wound up about this nonsense (remember the fish shrinking guys).   She’s probably right but what was insane was that they blamed this statistically indistinguishably small measurement of ‘productivity’ on an equally indistinguishable drought model.  There is no way to pull that kind of accuracy from even the best climate data over 10 years.  They knew it, we knew it, everyone knew it including most likely the editor and reviewers who agreed to publish it.   So I called them Charlatans, which is still my opinion.   Perhaps I should have called them advocates or something except that the dishonesty was at least as bad as any other example I have seen — my opinion again.

I still haven’t read the paper and still don’t intend to. Some of the less technical won’t understand why but I bet the more technical readers won’t mind this one bit — it is really that bad.  Global warming study is a business, make no doubt about it.  If you want BIG industry, AGW is right near the top of the list of biggest industries on Earth.  Profitable, lucrative, prestigious and cushy,  what more could you ask for.

My critiques were primarily unstated, again because I didn’t need to for many here to understand them but I did list this specifically:

Like you really can detect that plant productivity has decreased – due to drought – by 1 percent amongst all the noise in the data and then you attribute it to a few tenths of a degree C, bovine scatology.

Now the critiques of the paper have come in.  I’m surprised people took the time but glad at the same time.

bu-draft-press-release

samanta-etal

medlyn

The press release is more clear than the critiques.

The main premise of Zhao and Running’s model-based study was an expectation of increased
global plant productivity during the 2000s based on previously observed increases during the
1980s and 1990s under supposedly similar, favorable climatic conditions. Instead, Zhao and
Running were surprised to see a decline, which they attributed it to large-scale droughts in
the Southern Hemisphere.
“Their model has been tuned to predict lower productivity even for very small increases in
temperature. Not surprisingly, their results were preordained,” said Arindam Samanta, the
study’s lead author. (Samanta, now at Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc.,
Lexington, MA, worked on the study as a graduate student at Boston University’s Department
of Geography and Environment.)

My bold.  Not surprisingly!!   Think about that, what science would be able to be unsurprised with cooked books.  Perhaps one which was more about seeking business than truth.

In any case, the trends in plant productivity reported by Zhao and Running are miniscule—a
0.34% reduction in the Southern Hemisphere offset by a 0.24% gain in the Northern
Hemisphere for a net decline of 0.1% over a ten-year period from 2000 to 2009. “This is the
proverbial needle in a haystack,” said Simone Vieira, coauthor and researcher at the State
University of Campinas, Brazil. “There is no model accurate enough to predict such minute
changes over such short time intervals, even at hemispheric scales.”

Any investigation of trends in plant growth requires not only consistent and accurate climate
and satellite data but also a model suitable for such purposes. “The Zhao and Running study
does not even come close,” said Ranga Myneni, senior author and Professor of Geography,
Boston University. “Their analysis of satellite data is flawed because they included poor
quality data and do not bother to test trends for statistically significance. Our analyses of four
different higher-quality MODIS satellite vegetation products that have been carefully filtered
for data corruption show no statistically significant trends over 85% of the global vegetated
lands.”

Amazing, sound familiar?  My thanks to those who chose to waste their time and refute the nonsense of this paper.  It feels like all is not lost when sanity intervenes when bad work is published.

9 Responses to “Confirmation Again”

  1. Roddy Campbell said

    “In any case, the trends in plant productivity reported by Zhao and Running are miniscule”

    Pedant corner: ““The correct spelling is minuscule rather than miniscule. The latter is a common error, which has arisen by analogy with other words beginning with “mini”, where the meaning is similarly ‘very small’.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, 1998″

  2. Jeff Id said

    I would never have caught that one.

  3. timetochooseagain said

    I found it bizarre that they claimed a decline in productivity on warming…when there was no warming over the period. There was warming during the periods they claimed and increase productivity however. But that, being a good thing, can’t have anything to do with warming. Heh, it looks like the entire thing was nonsense anyway.

  4. Brian Hall said

    The debunking paper is obviously funded by Big Fish. I bet if you trawl the authors’ backgrounds you’ll find some hooks to tuna exploiters, or net some canned data from sardine processors, etc.

    >:-(

    >;p

  5. kim said

    Hey, some of my best instruments are Big Pianos in the tuna industry.
    =================

  6. Rob R said

    Don’t cheer too loud. The incorrect study is likely to make it into the next IPCC opus. The critiques probably won’t make it. That is just the way things seem to be in climate science. Ho hum

  7. curious said

    I agree about the business side of things – IMO it is one of the reasons why the mantra is so determinedly repeated and promoted.

    There is a massive amount of investment being mobilised on the the back of CO2 abatement measures, many of which, in Europe, are beneficiaries of incentives embedded in policy. IMO, against the backdrop of uncontrolled national debts, this is a clear example of a lack of “personal responsibility” on the part of the elected politicians.

    A 4.5bn euro example here which, for their funding, depends on ETS carbon credits having a value :

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1476

  8. PaulM said

    Jeff, if your blood pressure can stand it, you might want to look at the response from Zhao and Running.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6046/1093.5.full.pdf

    In it, they mis-summarise the criticism of Samanta and Medlyn, completely missing the main point of both about the circular modeling, and claim that new results show that it’s even worse than they thought!

  9. Glad your back Jeff I’ll be back every day once agian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: