[asa] Why We Need Peer Review

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Mar 30 2009 - 00:15:44 EDT

John, remember when you asked me about the climate science petition signed
by Freeman Dyson that Glenn mentioned last Summer? I posted to the list on
June 11, 2008 that this was a fraudulent petition. The following YouTube
video puts the facts into an easy-to-digest form.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

This is why we need peer review and not do science by poll. BTW, I did find
it funny that the Oregon folk thought a DVM degree was relevant for climate
change. Also note that by checking that very same post that Glenn's claim
that "no one has actually come out and said that my criticism of the raw
data is wrong" is false. Glenn was off list at the time so maybe he didn't
see it, though I did CC him. Still, a direct e-mail I sent to him in June
2008 said the following. All "copyrighted" comments by Glenn are redacted
out since he forbade me from quoting him publicly from his private e-mails.

First I explained why his criticism of the raw data was wrong and note how
the IPCC report I quoted also does the same.

If [having thermometers next to air conditioners] was a problem then there
would be greater anomalies during the Summer than Winter. There's not. Note
the stronger trend in North America in the Winter compared to Summer.

See here for the
picture.<http://s484.photobucket.com/albums/rr202/rblinne/ASA/?action=view&current=Picture2.png>

...

This is what AR4 said about [Urban Heat Island effect] Emphasis mine.

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any
urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer
time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson
et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from
the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with
clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about
270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night
minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 *were not enhanced on calm
nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming*.
Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be
influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). Over the
conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and
other changes, rural station trends were *almost indistinguishable* from
series including urban sites (Peterson, 2003; Figure 3.3, and similar
considerations apply to China from 1951 to 2001 (Li et al., 2004). One
possible reason for the patchiness of UHIs is the location of observing
stations in parks where urban influences are reduced (Peterson, 2003). In
summary, although some individual sites may be affected, including some
small rural locations, the UHI effect is not pervasive, as all global-scale
studies indicate *it is a very small component* of large-scale averages.
Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming
uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and
0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is
zero. These uncertainties are added to the cool side of the
estimated temperatures and trends, as explained by Brohan et al. (2006), so
that the error bars in Section 3.2.2.4, Figures 3.6 and 3.7 and FAQ 3.1,
Figure 1 are slightly asymmetric. The statistical significances of the trends
in Table 3.2 and Section 3.2.2.4, Table 3.3 take account of this asymmetry.

Here's again the
comparison<http://s484.photobucket.com/albums/rr202/rblinne/ASA/?action=view&current=Picture3.png>between
the urban and rural stations. The magenta line is the difference
between the two.

Then I explained why his deuterium analysis measured local and not global
warming. While Antarctica was warmer than pre-Industrial times 10 kya the
Indian and Pacific oceans was cooler. One of the reasons it's called global
warming is there is warming everywhere now, not just locally as in the past.
In my June 11 ASA post I explained that he failed to correct for pH.

[The EPICA and Vostok deuterium proxy] is local variation and not global.
Local variations can be of greater magnitude than global ones. Here's how
temperatures varied with kya and
lattitude<http://s484.photobucket.com/albums/rr202/rblinne/ASA/?action=view&current=Picture4.png>
.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 30 00:16:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 30 2009 - 00:16:18 EDT