Science requires the collection and interpretation of data. Consensus, therefore, requires that there be no significant dispute on either the data (e.g., its relevance) or it interpretation. The debate over whether there is a “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change has tended to focus on the interpretation of the data.
But what if the data is fatally flawed?
If you want to understand why the controversy over global warming won’t go away, forget combing through hundreds of hacked emails or trying to understand the enormously complex computer climate models that spit out predictions of our future doom. Instead, just check out the Marysville, California, temperature monitoring station that NASA and other climate researchers use to track temperature trends. The problems with the Marysville station represent in microcosm why the supposedly “settled” issue of climate change has become so unsettled in the last few months.
The Marysville temperature station is located at the city’s fire department, next to an asphalt parking lot and a cell phone tower, and only a few feet away from two air conditioning compressors that spew out considerable heat. These sources of heat amplification mean that the temperature readings from the Marysville station are useless for determining accurate temperatures for the Marysville area.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration admits that stations like Marysville, sited close to artificial heat sources such as parking lots, can produce errors as large as 5 degrees Celsius.
Indeed, the Marysville station violates the quality control standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA admits that stations like Marysville, sited close to artificial heat sources such as parking lots, can produce errors as large as 5 degrees Celsius. That is not the only shortcoming of the Marysville data; it turns out that daily data were missing for as many as half the days of any given month. Either the device failed to self-record, or no one recorded the daily data as procedure requires. NASA simply filled in the gaps in the data by “interpolating.
As the article notes, 89 percent of the 860 temperature stations surveyed fail to meet the National Weather Service’s site requirements that stations must be located at least 30 feet away from any artificial heat source. How can there be a consensus about how to interpret the data when the collection method is substandard?
March 29th, 2010 | 3:13 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DNC DUDES. DNC DUDES said: Settled Science Based on Unsettled Data: Science requires the collection and interpretation of data. Consensu… http://bit.ly/dyh8mE #tcot [...]
March 29th, 2010 | 3:39 pm
You really have to go to Surfacestations.org and look at the pictures of what they charitably designate as ‘Odd and irregular observing Sites’ to believe it. Personal favorite: the one in Hopkinsville, KY, where the monitor is mounted on a brick chimney, over an asphalt driveway, directly above a Weber grill.
March 29th, 2010 | 4:25 pm
If the only data was temperature readings, there wouldn’t be a debate. There’s plenty of evidence that the earth has been warming since the little ice age. The debate (among the reasonable and scientifically literate) is centered on whether human activity has caused the warming and if so to what degree. The evidence is circumstantial but compelling. So, it really comes down to whether you are willing to convict humanity based on circumstantial evidence. I would expect most people would take the “sentence” into account; for example there is less “burden of proof” to convict for wrongful death than is required for murder, because the penalty is much less severe. Similarly, if you advocate conservation to mitigate AGW then you’ll probably get more people to agree than if you call for massive changes in civilization.
March 30th, 2010 | 9:58 am
“If the only data was temperature readings, there wouldn’t be a debate. There’s plenty of evidence that the earth has been warming since the little ice age.”
In a sense this is simply wrong. (Notice the “in a sense”.) Yes, there has been warming since the end of the LIA, but to claim that the current controversey isn’t built on the temperature record is false. After all, we know the earth has been warmer than it is presently. The argument against the idea that our current warming is consistent with natural variation IS the temperature record which shows, it is claimed, “unprecedented” quick warming. This has been the motivation behind the creation of the various “hockey stick” graphs (all of which have been shown to be the product of shoddy methodology.)
Indeed, the warmists have gone so far as to, for all intents and purposes, deny the existence of the Urban Heat Island effect. In fact, there is some evidence that the “value added” temperature data has been altered in such a way to lower the instrument data before 1950 to make the supposed “run up” after 1980 look stronger. Add to this the concerted effort to deny physical and historical evidence for the well established Medieval Warm Period, and I’m not sure it is credible to think we are dealing with honest climate assesments.
Also, the idea that the “consequences” we are talking about are basically painless is also simply false. There have been discussions at very high levels suggesting our basic understanding of democratic representative government might not be “modern enough” to handle the “climate crisis.” This is the clarion call of a technocratic elite which seeks to fundamentally alter the way we live our lives and rule ourselves, and they are not shy about letting people know it.
March 30th, 2010 | 1:05 pm
As if by my very command(!), a perfect example of what I’m talking about popped up today in the British press:
This lunacy isn’t getting played out by some publication no one has ever heard of. It is being trotted out by the Guardian. (Kinda appropriate in a Karl Popper reading Plato’s “Republic” sort of way.)
April 1st, 2010 | 2:49 am
“…there is less ‘burden of proof’ to convict for wrongful death than is required for murder, because the penalty is much less severe.”-John W.
I don’t think ‘burden of proof’ means what you think it means.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact