Climate change... debunked?
There is a graph that is making the rounds over the past few days, and it's being touted by some as a sort of "smoking gun" in the climate change debate.
The graph was posted by "The Mail On Sunday", probably better known in Britain than in my own stomping grounds. And at the risk of poisoning the well, I'll admit that it has a reputation among some of us as being, well, a bit biased. At the very least, I'm sure we can all agree that their reporting on climate change trends towards one specific point of view over the other. ;)
Regardless, David Rose, veteran of the The Mail's climate wars has posted a new article with the aforementioned graph. Here's the graph, which you can click for a link through to his article.
Rose's contention is that the black line (purportedly showing "actual temperature averages") is about to leave the predicted range: the lighter red shaded area that represents the temperature predictions of 95% certainty. The argument being made here is that since actual temperatures are not matching up to predictions, we should be questioning not only the methodology by which these predictions have been made, but the policies based upon them: government spending, green technology, energy policies, etc. Obviously if we are spending countless dollars (or pounds) on programs, "ruining" the landscape and the reputations of those who disagree and making sweeping economic policy changes, we'd better be darn sure we're correct about our conclusions in the first place. And the article reaches the conclusion that no, we are not correct: that the "graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler."
But is this true?
Some scientists have been quick to point out that the problem is not that Rose's data is bad, but that he's misreading what it actually says. There is not a binary "correct" and "incorrect" value: the zones are predicted ranges, and temporarily ducking outside of, say, the 95% certainty range doesn't mean that the data is suddenly in start disagreement with everyone. Regardless, that black line does, in fact, almost always stay within that 95% certainty range - and happens to still be within it today, at the time of Rose's article. And even if Rose is correct, that the line is "about" to exit that zone, this doesn't disprove anything: such "exits" are actually to be expected - about 5% of the time. That's what 95% certainty implies, and on a short term scale, such seemingly wild fluctuations are not just normal but inevitable.
PZ Myers talks some about this, and there's some back and forth discussion in his comments section, but Phil Plait does a far better job explaining how this works.
He makes an excellent analogy to dice throwing:
"That’s because you expect to see ups and downs from year to year. Looking over the graph makes that pretty obvious. Sometimes you get more downs than ups, sometimes it’s the other way. It’s a bit like throwing a pair of dice: Do it enough times and you’ll get a few snake eyes in a row just by random statistics. But if the dice are off-balance, just a bit, then over time you’ll see there are way more bad throws than you’d expect if the dice were fair.
That’s our current climate. Because human-generated global warming is loading the dice, we see that upward trend over time. You can’t look at one throw of the dice, or even three or four; you need to look at dozens to understand the trend. What Rose is doing is showing you the past three throws and ignoring what was going on in the last 50."
There are other more detailed points he addresses, but suffice to say, I agree with Plait's contention that Rose's conclusions are oversimplified at best, his sweeping statements premature and his arguments simply, for want of a better word, bad science. Other, more technical, rebuttals can easily be found online, but as Plait's always quick to chime in on these and usually links to those other folks on his own, I linked to him for you all, in case you're interested in digging further.
So, my opinion is pretty clear on this matter: Rose is just plainly incorrect. But what do we take away from all of this? Even if we were to agree that he has been well debunked (I'm sure we won't), we're left with a problem: Rose's article remains online, and his information is disseminated. As a commenter over on PZ Myers' blog opined: "I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this graph, and the ‘explanation’ of it, will infest the pro-carbon lobby’s lieterature and web-lies for the next ten years."
That's where the big problem lies, at least in my opinion. Unfortunately, you don't have to look very far to see this graph already proudly displayed by many bloggers with a skeptical climate opinion. What's happening here is that these numbers can now be be flashed around to generate an aura of legitimacy, a claim made as to what those numbers represent; and even though those numbers actually say the opposite of what's being claimed, the data adds weight to arguments. Too few, either those posting it or those reading it, actually bother to check the numbers themselves: holding the numbers up is enough. Even though the graph obviously does not even come close to saying what Rose claims, the graph's title, matched with "scientific" looking data and graphics, lends an aura of legitimacy and accuracy to its claims.
As Plait points out, this has happened before: an article in the Daily Mail is used as a source, is parrotted in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which is read by a lobbyist to a congressman, who provides opposition to action on the real facts of climate change. "Facts" that are misleading, or just plain untrue, can easily enter the public discourse and the parlance of politicians, who use those "facts" in policymaking. That has disasterous implications in terms of our future, especially when dealing with problems that occur over a long-term scale, such as climate change.
Is there a solution to this kind of misinformation? Chime in below. As for myself, the only solution I can really think of is to continue to debunk, to try to increase the ratio of signal to noise while waiting for Max Planck to be proven true: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
The graph was posted by "The Mail On Sunday", probably better known in Britain than in my own stomping grounds. And at the risk of poisoning the well, I'll admit that it has a reputation among some of us as being, well, a bit biased. At the very least, I'm sure we can all agree that their reporting on climate change trends towards one specific point of view over the other. ;)
Regardless, David Rose, veteran of the The Mail's climate wars has posted a new article with the aforementioned graph. Here's the graph, which you can click for a link through to his article.
Rose's contention is that the black line (purportedly showing "actual temperature averages") is about to leave the predicted range: the lighter red shaded area that represents the temperature predictions of 95% certainty. The argument being made here is that since actual temperatures are not matching up to predictions, we should be questioning not only the methodology by which these predictions have been made, but the policies based upon them: government spending, green technology, energy policies, etc. Obviously if we are spending countless dollars (or pounds) on programs, "ruining" the landscape and the reputations of those who disagree and making sweeping economic policy changes, we'd better be darn sure we're correct about our conclusions in the first place. And the article reaches the conclusion that no, we are not correct: that the "graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler."
But is this true?
Some scientists have been quick to point out that the problem is not that Rose's data is bad, but that he's misreading what it actually says. There is not a binary "correct" and "incorrect" value: the zones are predicted ranges, and temporarily ducking outside of, say, the 95% certainty range doesn't mean that the data is suddenly in start disagreement with everyone. Regardless, that black line does, in fact, almost always stay within that 95% certainty range - and happens to still be within it today, at the time of Rose's article. And even if Rose is correct, that the line is "about" to exit that zone, this doesn't disprove anything: such "exits" are actually to be expected - about 5% of the time. That's what 95% certainty implies, and on a short term scale, such seemingly wild fluctuations are not just normal but inevitable.
PZ Myers talks some about this, and there's some back and forth discussion in his comments section, but Phil Plait does a far better job explaining how this works.
He makes an excellent analogy to dice throwing:
"That’s because you expect to see ups and downs from year to year. Looking over the graph makes that pretty obvious. Sometimes you get more downs than ups, sometimes it’s the other way. It’s a bit like throwing a pair of dice: Do it enough times and you’ll get a few snake eyes in a row just by random statistics. But if the dice are off-balance, just a bit, then over time you’ll see there are way more bad throws than you’d expect if the dice were fair.
That’s our current climate. Because human-generated global warming is loading the dice, we see that upward trend over time. You can’t look at one throw of the dice, or even three or four; you need to look at dozens to understand the trend. What Rose is doing is showing you the past three throws and ignoring what was going on in the last 50."
There are other more detailed points he addresses, but suffice to say, I agree with Plait's contention that Rose's conclusions are oversimplified at best, his sweeping statements premature and his arguments simply, for want of a better word, bad science. Other, more technical, rebuttals can easily be found online, but as Plait's always quick to chime in on these and usually links to those other folks on his own, I linked to him for you all, in case you're interested in digging further.
So, my opinion is pretty clear on this matter: Rose is just plainly incorrect. But what do we take away from all of this? Even if we were to agree that he has been well debunked (I'm sure we won't), we're left with a problem: Rose's article remains online, and his information is disseminated. As a commenter over on PZ Myers' blog opined: "I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this graph, and the ‘explanation’ of it, will infest the pro-carbon lobby’s lieterature and web-lies for the next ten years."
That's where the big problem lies, at least in my opinion. Unfortunately, you don't have to look very far to see this graph already proudly displayed by many bloggers with a skeptical climate opinion. What's happening here is that these numbers can now be be flashed around to generate an aura of legitimacy, a claim made as to what those numbers represent; and even though those numbers actually say the opposite of what's being claimed, the data adds weight to arguments. Too few, either those posting it or those reading it, actually bother to check the numbers themselves: holding the numbers up is enough. Even though the graph obviously does not even come close to saying what Rose claims, the graph's title, matched with "scientific" looking data and graphics, lends an aura of legitimacy and accuracy to its claims.
As Plait points out, this has happened before: an article in the Daily Mail is used as a source, is parrotted in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which is read by a lobbyist to a congressman, who provides opposition to action on the real facts of climate change. "Facts" that are misleading, or just plain untrue, can easily enter the public discourse and the parlance of politicians, who use those "facts" in policymaking. That has disasterous implications in terms of our future, especially when dealing with problems that occur over a long-term scale, such as climate change.
Is there a solution to this kind of misinformation? Chime in below. As for myself, the only solution I can really think of is to continue to debunk, to try to increase the ratio of signal to noise while waiting for Max Planck to be proven true: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."