$30,000 Challenge Submission – NOAA and IPCC

Part 1: Have to break this in more than one post.

I am going to keep this as short and simple as possible so even a physicist will understand and not be able to poke holes in the FACTS. Everything stated supporting my claim to the $10,000 is factual.

Definition of The Scientific Method – a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

1. Problem identification: dispute claim that man-made global climate change is not occurring; for $10,000

2. Relevant data are gathered: I am accepted by the IPCC as a reviewer of IPCC drafts and submit my analysis of draft reports. I reviewed and analyzed hundreds of papers on global warming; examined data used; calculated margins of error; and assessed findings and conclusions.

3. A hypothesis is formulated from these data (point #2): the margin of error in climate papers is so high, sometimes 200%+, as to be totally unacceptable by any reasonable person and any respectable scientist. It is an indisputable fact that poor quality data sets (and inaccurate computer models) used in modelling projections out 20, 30, 40, 100 years or more, absolutely result in flawed findings and conclusions. The margin of error simply multiplies the further out to go. You simply need to examine the stated range of any projected climate model prediction to see the size of the error. The inability NOAA to accurately project the path of the largest natural localized weather event, a hurricane, out past 72 hours, clearly shows that is impossible to predict climate, which is the summation of weather over a period of time, on a regional to global basis, 20 to 100+ years into the future.

4. The hypothesis is empirically tested: see below

Fact: Neither the IPCC, NOAA, nor NASA, has established any uniform guidelines for: a minimum and maximum margin of error; a stated minimum size of data elements and sets; standard for accuracy of weather data used; accuracy of the measuring equipment. (using 4 examples to keep it simple). Research papers rarely state the margin of error but hide it with a huge range in projected results, under the guise of “confidence.”
cottereaux@yahoo.com

ReplyDelete

Replies



  1. Part 2:
    Example: I can state with a very high confidence level (greater than 90% chance), that the 2015 hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean will have between zero (0) and 50 hurricanes. I can state with a very high confidence level (greater than 90% chance), that the 2115 hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean will have between zero (0) and 50 hurricanes. Who reading this today will be alive in 2115 to say I am incorrect?

    NOAA: “Global sea level rise has been a persistent trend for decades. It is expected to continue beyond the end of this century, which will cause significant impacts in the United States. Scientists have very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) and no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.”

    8 inches to 78 inches (6.6 feet) that range equals 875.00% MARGIN OF ERROR! WTF!
    Real world reality check: would you accept a car repair estimate from an expert mechanic that thoroughly examined your vehicle inside and out; then says the repairs will cost you between $800 and $7,800? Be honest Dr. Keating!

    Consider NASA’s conclusions based upon poor accuracy of the GRACE data. See: “Time-variable gravity observations of ice sheet mass balance: Precision and limitations of the GRACE satellite data”

    “We discuss the impacts of errors associated with spherical harmonic truncation, spatial averaging, temporal sampling, and leakage from other time-dependent signals (e.g., glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA))… The largest sources of error for Antarctica are the GIA correction, the omission of l=1 terms, nontidal changes in ocean mass, and measurement errors.” Duh!!!

    “For Antarctica, we report changes of −83 ± 49 and −147 ± 80 Gt/yr for two GIA models, with an acceleration of −12 ± 9 Gt/yr2 and a dominance from the southeast pacific sector of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula.”

    A “loss” of -83 but ± 49 Gt/yr = 59% margin of error in calculations/measurements.
    A “loss” of −147 ± 80 Gt/yr = 54.42% margin of error in calculations/measurements

    Fact: Weather stations in the USA produce inaccurate readings that are used in global warming computer models. (How accurate are the readings in other countries? Third world countries?)

    CLIMATE MONITORING: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (What a mess! Inaccurate readings, Garbage In, Garbage Out)
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11800.pdf

    Read the report and do your own math.
    Compliant thermometers say +0.155C/decade
    Non-compliant thermometer say +0.248C/decade (60% ERROR)
    NOAA final adjusted data says +0.309C/decade (99.35% ERROR)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    cottereaux@yahoo.com

    Delete

  2. Part 3:
    Fact: IPCC reports ignore the significant impact of tectonic plate shifting, the most powerful force on Earth after gravity, on any rise or fall in sea level. (Sea level rise and fall is not uniform across the globe)

    Fact: The IPCC ignores the impact of undersea volcanoes and undersea vents on warming the oceans and any increase in ocean CO2.

    I will not get into how climate scientists ignore the impact of energy from the Solar Cycle as I said I would keep this simple.

    Conclusion: “Climate science” fails miserably any test by the reasonable person standard, and fails horribly utilizing the scientific method. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Massaging data to produce predetermined results in not the scientific method.

    Selectively ignoring the obvious does make any claim of global warming true. The margins of error are totally unacceptable considering the absurd future project and claims the models are accurate. The margin of error in climate models is so absurdly high you have better odds by tossing a coin.

    I am keeping my beach front property! Dr. Keating, please CASH ONLY. $100 & $50 dollar bills, no personal checks. cottereaux@yahoo.com

    Response:

    Your claim is that man made global warming is not real is because you don’t like the accuracy of the long range forecasts. There is no evidence (or even an argument) in that statement that man made global warming is not real.  I also have a great deal of difficulty of your characterization of climate relative to weather. The difficulty of predicting the course of a hurricane is very different than predicting climate. As an example, I may not be able to predict with confidence how a hurricane will preform, but I can say with very great accuracy that fall will follow summer and winter will follow fall, etc. Weather is highly variable, but that variability smooths out over a large amount of time and many events. The first is weather, the second is climate.

    So, your complaint on that point is not valid. You are trying a misdirection. The fact that weather is variable is not proof, one way or the other, about man made global warming.

    The abstract for the paper on GRACE you referenced is quoted here:

    [1] Time-variable gravity data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission have been available since 2002 to estimate the mass balance of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. We analyze current progress and uncertainties in GRACE estimates of ice sheet mass balance. We discuss the impacts of errors associated with spherical harmonic truncation, spatial averaging, temporal sampling, and leakage from other time-dependent signals (e.g., glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA)). The largest sources of error for Antarctica are the GIA correction, the omission of l=1 terms, nontidal changes in ocean mass, and measurement errors. For Greenland, the errors come mostly from the uncertainty in the scaling factor. Using Release 5.0 (RL05) GRACE fields for January 2003 through November 2012, we find a mass change of −258 ± 41 Gt/yr for Greenland, with an acceleration of −31 ± 6 Gt/yr2, and a loss that migrated clockwise around the ice sheet margin to progressively affect the entire periphery. For Antarctica, we report changes of −83 ± 49 and −147 ± 80 Gt/yr for two GIA models, with an acceleration of −12 ± 9 Gt/yr2 and a dominance from the southeast pacific sector of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula.

    Notice that they give the margin of error (which you stated are left out of papers) and that the margin of error is less than the stated principle values, meaning that the principle values cannot be explained away with the margin of error. Your complaint is that the margin of error is large (50% +). Explain how that is even evidence that man made global warming is not real, not to mention proof. By the way, when you make that argument be sure to include the fact that the margin of error goes down as more data is collected over time. The longer the GRACE mission lasts, the more the margins of error will go down. The data used in that paper came from January 2003 to November 2012. That means we now have 20 months of additional data, a 17% increase.

    Your “Fact” about weather stations is not true.  Here is a very good review, with several refereed papers cited in support, that the temperature record is accurate. I can’t be certain of the source of your claim, but I am suspecting it is related to the claims that Anthony Watt has made concerning urban heat island effect. This claim has been thoroughly debunked. There is a mountain of evidence to show that this is a false argument, but one of the surest is the fact that we see the greatest amount of warming in polar and wilderness areas, far from any urban areas. See this article here about that topic.

    I see nothing in the GAO report that invalidates NOAA weather data. But, NOAA is not the only source of temperature records. For instance, Berkeley Earth uses a completely independent data set and they get the same results. Getting the same results from different sources only increases our confidence in the data, not reduce it.

    And, if your source of information is Anthony Watts I can tell you with high confidence (90% plus or minus a minuscule amount) that you are wrong. Watts is a denier associated with the Heartland Institute, an organization that receives funding from the fossil fuel industry and certain conservative entities with the directed goal of undermining climate science. Anyone or anything associated with them is not credible.

    You imply as facts things that you cannot substantiate nor show are relevant. That certainly does not fall within the scientific evidence category, such as ocean warming is coming from below and plate tectonics is responsible for sea level rise. How is it relevant if the IPCC does not include those issues? I don’t know that they include the price of corn, but I wouldn’t really care if they don’t. It has to be relevant and you did nothing to show these issues are relevant, while there is plenty of evidence to show they are not.

    We know that ocean warming is not being caused by underwater volcanoes and hot water vents because the oceans are warming from the top down, meaning that the heat source is nearest the area with the greatest warming, i.e., the atmosphere. If it was coming from below then the warming would be occurring from the bottom up.

    As for the issue of plate tectonics, I give you a quote from the University of Colorado below.

    Do you account for plate tectonics in the global mean sea level trend?

    Edited: 2012-08-23

    The principal tectonic processes (ridge building, subduction, etc.) responsible for changing the ocean basins are measured in millions of years and are so slow that short-term global satellite records do not consider them. Glacial isostatic adjustment is comparatively a much shorter-term process (although still measured in thousands of years), and it does have a minor effect on ocean basin size. The current effect has been estimated to be -0.3 mm/yr of equivalent sea level rise due to increasing ocean basin size. This effect is corrected in the satellite altimeter global mean sea level time series and contributes 0.3 mm/yr to the estimated global mean sea level. This is considered a small effect since it is less than our estimated error of 0.4 mm/yr.

    So, you’re right, plate tectonics is not included (although, I would certainly say it was considered, but rejected), but you’re wrong to imply that is some kind of fatal flaw.

    So, the conclusion is that you made a very poor argument concerning the issues you presented and none of it addressed the reality of man made global warming. You did not prove, using scientific evidence, that man made global warming is not real.

     

Advertisements

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