the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

In the Real World, Accuracy Counts

Posted by Jeff Id on July 20, 2014

I received a notice of new publications today, and along with it a graphic linking to yet another Antarctic doom paper.   In it, the link uses the flawed Steig 09 temperature plot of the Antarctic taken from the cover of Nature.    A particularly interesting choice considering that GRL published the corrected version (our paper), and Nature carried the flawed version proudly displayed right on its cover.

GRL Geophysical Research Letters Antarctic Glaciers Climate Change

 

For those of us who care about little things like accuracy in science, this is a realistic appearance of Antarctic temperature trends over that same timeframe.  Of course the actual measured temperatures in the West Antarctic (lower left in particular) don’t appear quite as doom-worthy.

 


21 Responses to “In the Real World, Accuracy Counts”

  1. pdtillman said

    “Don’t confuse us with the facts — Our minds are made up”

  2. stevefitzpatrick said

    Jeff,
    What have you been smokin’? You know that no reference to the more accurate temperature plot will ever be referenced by the enlightened. It is a political decision. Remember to vote early, and as they say in Chicago, often.

    • Jeff Id said

      I’ve given up on the voter. People are just too damned stupid to work even whether Obama is a good idea or not. For the pseudo-logical, you have to have twisted your mind so far from common sense even to consider it logically, that nothing anyone can write or say will change your mind. The rest just vote on who has the best advertising. That they will get on buses and vote in multiple districts unchallenged is like the border, just another sign of America’s deterioration into corruption. Trading law for votes.

      But temps ain’t votes and scientists of any caliber should be ashamed to republish flawed data over and over. Steig’s comment about a year ago, that some core study validated his work is complete ostrich behavior. I reject your reality and substitute my own!

  3. omanuel said

    Thanks to a few brave souls like you, Jeff, sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 – 69 yrs) of government deception are about to “blow!

    Bill Streifer gave me permission to say the new book he will coauthor with a Stanford physicist, “Dr. Fritz J. Hansgirg: Heavy Water and the Secret History of the Atomic Bomb,” provides independent evidence of the nuclear energy covered up that Galen Winston discusses in this video:

  4. Chuck L said

    Jeff, any thoughts on the Risbey/Oreskes/Lewandowsky/et al paper “proving” that the models are actually fabulous?

    • Jeff Id said

      I’ve not read the paper, just what I’ve seen elsewhere. I’m sure they are similar to you. I really can’t believe they are trying sophistry of short term variance being normal, when all of the statistical analyses to date have taken that into account. From some of the segments at WUWT, it looks like they may have taken the paleo-proxy approach to data sorting models. A shocking new level of scientific fraud if that is the case.

      • Chuck L said

        It is hard to believe that any legitimate scientist would want to be associated with Lewandowsky. Many newspapers are already seizing on this paper since it “proves” that the models are just peachy keen. I miss your blogging since you have the knack to make complex subjects accessible to people like me; it’s been over 3 years since I took Statistics and Calculus! It sounds like your business is doing well and having been self-employed with my own business at one time I have some understanding about how running a successful business requires complete commitment in all aspects of one’s life.

        • Chuck L said

          That’s over 30 years since I took math/stats!🙂

        • Jeff Id said

          Thanks for the compliment. I had always hoped that my style would communicate the issues to the public. From my own early experiences, CA is often too technical for a layperson or even a casual technical person to read and a bit of tx doesn’t hurt. The business is doing pretty well, it could always be better but we do what we can. Our growth rate is ridiculously high so that is good.

        • hunter said

          Chuck L,
          Check your assumptions. Why assume legitimacy? Lewandowsky/Cook attract like minded souls.

  5. “For the entire 1957–2006 period, the reconstructed trends at the Byrd location are 0.05 +/- 0.13 (RLS) and 0.02 +/- 0.13 (EW). For the satellite coverage period of 1982–2006, those become 0.21 +/- 0.36 (RLS) and 0.15 +/- 0.26 (E-W). By comparison, the S09 Byrd trends are 0.26 +/- 0.12 and 0.47 +/- 0.31, respectively.”

    “David Bromwich, a professor of polar meteorology at Ohio State University, and a team including Antarctic weather station experts from the University of Wisconsin, published a paper in Nature Geoscience showing that the warming in central West Antarctica was unambiguous—and likely about twice the magnitude estimated by Steig et al.”

    So if Stieg’s values were too conservative, and yours were less than Stieg’s, that would make yours really, really …..Yeah, you sure showed ’em.

    • Jeff Id said

      Kevin,

      Steig’s values were just wrong. They were wrong in the peninsula for underestimating trends and wrong in the West Antarctic. Antarctica is a big place and there is more to the West Antarctic than Byrd.

      Is it not interesting that GRL, which published our work, prefers to advertise with the all red image from Steig’s flawed work published in Nature? I work hard to keep in mind that we are just observers of the data, not the arbiters so our role is only to calculate accurately. Show em or not, is not part of the equation.

      • Nic Lewis said

        Jeff,

        I quite agree; it is appalling how climate scientists/ journals have kept on using the mathematically unsatisfactory Steig Antarctica reconstruction, which badly misrepresents the available data, rather than ours.

        It is also worth pointing out that Bromwich got his high Byrd trend from stitching together the records of the old manned Byrd station and the new automated one, without any calibration adjustment to put them on the same basis. As the stations were in different locations and used different instrumentation, and their records failed to overlap by a fair number of years, the lack of any offset seems unjustifiable and would surely never be assumed by any of the major surface temperature datasets (but Cowtan & Way do use the Bromwich reconstruction at Bryd).

        BTW, our paper was published in Journal of Climate, not GRL.

  6. hunter said

    There is no reason at this point for the climate obsessed to apply high standards to their work. It is not required at since they get funding, accolades, Presidential compliments, etc. for saying the right thing, not for doing the right thing.

    • omanuel said

      Hunter, the primary purpose of government science after August 1945 was to obscure the force in the cores of heavy atoms that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Neutron Repulsion.

      This force that generates energy, fuel and food from cores of heavy atoms, stars and galaxies was replaced with pseudo-cosmology, astronomy, nuclear and astro-physics so world leaders could themselves assume the historical role of God with totalitarian control over all humanity.

  7. HaroldW said

    You probably won’t appreciate this use of the Steig et al. graphic either.

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

 
%d bloggers like this: