Change in Hottest US Month Isn't a Conspiracy

Article: Change in Hottest US Month Isn't a Conspiracy: Here's Why

I am glad that NOAA adjusted the data to better reflect reality.

NOAA now has a 10 year data base from new weather stations, sited in "pristine locations," with standardized thermometers and data gathering methods, and with sites widely distributed throughout the US.

With this data at their fingertips, they found it necessary to decrease the 2012 temperature by 0.8 F. (Which is a large amount, as the entire increase over the last of 150 years is 1.33 F. Although that is not a fair comparison.)

They decreased the 1936 temperature by 0.6 F.

The changes make both temperatures almost the same.

The problem from my point of view is that all of the discussion of the need to change the data had to do with historical issues. Why is necessary to change recent data when a good set was already available? Or was it changed because the good set was available and the contrast would show that the adjusted data was the problem?

It may not be a conspiracy, but it does continue to add fuel to the conspiracy theories. There has been too much compromised data and "adjustments," too many retracted "hottest months" and "hottest years," and too much retracted or debunked research (for example, Michael Mann's "hockey stick").  This does not even deal with the real hiatus in warming.

Science genuinely proceeds in fits and starts. It produces hypotheses that are proven out or falsified. It makes grand announcements that are then retracted. And, occasionally, fraud is involved (or at least large doses of wishful thinking). This is normal. We are talking about human beings.

The problem is that the global warming advocates always err on the side of higher temperatures or dramatic predictions that do not pan out.

If NOAA and Goddard and East Anglia are all doing unbiased science, there would not be this kind of systematic error.

Update: this is a different issue, but still about adjusting climate data.

[H]e [Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That"] believes that the researchers have likely succumbed to this confirmation bias in their temperature analyses. In other words, he thinks the NCDC’s scientists do not question the results of their adjustment procedures because they report the trend the researches expect to find.

From Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine quoted in Practicing the Dark Art of Temperature Trend Adjustment

What is poverty in the US?

Article: Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

One of the key points in the article is that Americans confuse "poverty" (which has a political definition) with destitution. Very few people in the US are actually destitute. And most of those in poverty are as well off as the middle classes in Europe.

Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

The article:  What is poverty in the US today?
The authors of the article make a distinction between poverty and destitution. Poverty is, essentially, an arbitrary line, a political construct. Destitution is what most people think the word poverty means, but is not what our political definitions of poverty mean.

Although the public equates poverty with physical deprivation, the overwhelming majority of poor households do not experience any form of physical deprivation. Some 70 percent of poor households report that during the course of the past year, they were able to meet “all essential expenses,” including mortgage, rent, utility bills, and important medical care. 

It is widely supposed that the poor are unable to obtain medical care, but in reality, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to a doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable because the family could not afford the cost.

There is a trope on the right: in 1964 we declared war on poverty. Poverty won.

In reality, true poverty, Dickensian poverty, destitution, has been mostly defeated. And a significant amount of what is left is due to appallingly bad choices (drug and alcohol addiction) or due to psychopathology (or both). 


The Vision of the Anointed
I am currently reading The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell.

One of the oft repeated points he makes in Chapter 3 ("By the Numbers") is how the intelligentsia (the "Anointed") in the US grab "aha" statistics to make a case.

He differentiates between data/facts on one hand, and evidence on the other. While data can be evidence, evidence is usually a broader look at all the data, and involves a testable hypothesis. That is, if a government policy is put into effect, then an hypothesis about what the policy will accomplish can be used to predict which evidence will show the success or failure of a policy.

One can always find an "aha" to support a policy: facts, statistics, data, and/or anecdotes.

He also makes a point about those who are in the lowest income bracket. On page 44 he notes (and footnotes) that 80% of those in poverty in 1979 where not there in 1988. About the same number were in poverty, by only 20% of these were in poverty in both 1979 and in 1988.

People in the US move into and out of various income brackets during their life times. A recent college graduate who is doing an AmeriCorps internship may be receiving food stamps and be in poverty. It is unlikely that he or she will there in 10 years. A professional in the last 5 years of his/her working life maybe in the top 5% bracket, but no longer be in the top 20% upon retiring. A family may be doing well when both parents are working, but in the lowest 20% if one is laid off and cannot find work for a year or two. Some members of a family in the middle 20% bracket may end up in the lowest 20% after a divorce.

Anecdote
For the last 20 years of her life, my mother lived in "poverty."  She had a small income from CD's originally set up by my father before his death. She had a small social security check (small for a variety of reasons).

She also owned her own home (with A/C), a car, 2 fridges, a microwave, a dishwasher, and two TV's (both with cable). She did not want a music system; she would listen to TV-embargoed baseball games on a boombox. She lived in a retirement community, and therefore paid a homeowner's fee to take care of the house's exterior including the roof, the lawn, and the trash disposal.

Yet, because her income was so small, she was living in poverty.

(She refused to get food stamps; those were for 'poor people.')

Hypothesis falsified: Antarctic sea ice and climate change

Article: Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1 million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Quick summary of the scientific method: observations lead to a problem/question. The question leads to an hypothesis: a reasonable, possible, testable answer to that question. The hypothesis has to be testable, and tested; the experiment. Here, the experiment is computer models that predict that "if climate change due to anthropogenic global warming is real then Antarctic sea ice should decrease."  If it fails the test, scientists say that the hypothesis has been falsified.

Hypothesis falsified:

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

Hypothesis falsified:

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.

The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’

Hypothesis falsified:

Some scientists have suggested the Antarctic ice increase may itself be caused by global warming. But Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the arguments were not convincing.

She added: ‘We do not have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the rise in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

This does not prove that either global warming or the climate change due to it is wrong. It only shows that specific, though widely predicted effects and widely accepted predictions are not happening. And therefore the specific hypotheses that they are based on have been falsified.

Climate change, red hair and Scotland

Article: Climate change could make red hair a thing of the past if Scotland gets sunnier

Ludicrous, silly, ignorant; a trifecta of stupidity.

The author makes the argument that the red hair trait is adaptive because fair skin helps vitamin D to be made. It won't be necessary if Scotland gets more sun due climate change.

Maybe after several thousand years of increased sunniness due to climate change. Maybe if everyone had to live outside for most of their lives like their farming/herding ancestors did. Maybe if no one takes vitamin D supplements.  Maybe, suddenly, red haired women will no longer be considered attractive.

And I can only hope this is a misquote:

“If it was to get less cloudy and there was more sun, there would be fewer people carrying the gene.”

What would cause that? Wishful thinking?

Pristine siting, raw data, and US climate cooling

Article: Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

[T]he USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms.

 "Issues:"
1) Since this only covers the last 10 years, and since "climate" is really a running, 15-year average, we can only call this a "trend." And the "trend" is not statisitically significant, because the time period is so short. On the other hand, the temperatures over the last 10 years, are certainly not rising.

2) US data is US data, not world-wide. However, since the world-wide data is also showing a slight cooling trend over the last 17 years, the US data is merely a confirmation of that trend.

Dr James Hansen, formerly of NASA's Goddard Center and one of the leading US voices arguing for anthropogenic global warming, has been been shown to be wrong about continued warming in the US (see article) over the last 17 years.

Real Titles: China has a God problem

Article: Pope Francis has a China Problem

Real title #1: "Chinese dictators have a God problem."

Real title #2: "China has a Pope Francis problem."

God, and the Catholic Church, are going to be around a lot longer than the dictators/oligarchy that currently run mainland China. Read the article from the point of view that God is eternal.

Quote:
Pope Francis would be unlikely to want to come without a promised meeting with the underground [Catholic Church] group as well, which would embarrass Beijing.

Like I said. 

The Great Floating Grocery Bag Question

Article: Plastic Bag Fantasy Island Vanishes Like Atlantis, Scientist Corrects Million-Ton Floating Estimate

Article: Ninety-nine percent of the ocean's plastic is missing

A scientific expedition was sent to various "gyres" in the major oceans. These were long thought to be places that plastic debris would accumulate in the ocean. They expected to find lots of plastics, and expected to find lots of grocery bags and balloons. They found little of the former and none of the latter.

The million ton figure was an estimate made in the 1970's. The number has been endlessly recycled since then and is now fully entrenched. [See the "Woozle Effect," below.]

No study has been made since then despite the following: littering is now considered despicable (less trash and more people picking up), trash and trash disposal sites are a lot more tightly managed in general, and recycling of plastics is now widely practiced. It may also been an over-estimation at the time.

By-the-by, I was around in the 1950's and 1960's; littering was a huge problem and it was considered normal to throw things way outside. And litter is, by the way, an excellent example of dealing with a problem in a conservative manner. Significant fines for littering were passed (and enforced). However, the real change change came as a result of First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson's education campaign to "Beautify America."

The researcher who came up with the original, million ton estimate revised his numbers. "His latest estimate ranges from 7,000 to 35,000 tons, and even most of that has biodegraded into granules."

Possible reasons for the small amount: the original number was an over-estimation, the plastic is actually biodegrading completely, it is being consumed and sinking to the ocean bottom in feces, and/or it is providing a microhabitat for sea creatures and their weight is causing the particles to sink.

My guess is all of the above.

His million ton number was also used to estimate that 1.5 million marine animals were killed each year due to ingestion of plastics. That number has been revised downward, drastically, as well.

The original numbers were then used to justify banning plastic grocery bags in many California communities. Even to attempt to reverse this ban would be denounced as "anti-environment," despite that the science says that the problem is a lot smaller than originally thought. 

Using a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation, 35,000 tons is less that 25 ppb (parts per billion).

The "Woozle effect".

The Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation, or a woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals, groups and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and nonfacts become urban myths and factoids.

The Woozle effect is a variation on the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.