Bishop Hill LWEC Report Card: A microcosm of global warming exaggeration and errors
Jun 6, 2014 Climate: Statistics Climate: WG2 This is a guest post by reader 'Peartreefruiting'.
[Addition below by author's request 11.30am, 7.6.2014]
In the Annual Review 2013 of the British Trust for Ornithology there is an article entitled “There will be changes afoot”, which details observed and expected changes to British habitat as a result of global warming. It contains the statement “warmer springs have also led to a trend towards many biological events becoming earlier”. Since 2013 was the coldest British spring for 50 years, it seemed strange timing for such a statement, so I decided to probe into it. The article on its own has no verifiable data, but it gives a link to this page at the LWEC website, which in turn links to a document entitled “Biodiversity English for Web.pdf”. LWEC is the organization “Living with Environmental Change”, and its website states that it is a partnership of 22 major UK public sector funders and users of environmental research, including the research councils and central government departments.
On page 7 of the PDF one finds the relevant statement: “during the period 1994–2006 when average annual spring temperatures increased by 1.4°C, the diversity of the bird community increased by 8%”. (This article will not dwell on the undoubted good news that warmer springs correlated with increased diversity of the bird community.)
The 1.4°C figure still had no provenance, but a helpful BTO ecologist referred me to Davey et al (“Rise of the generalists: evidence for climate driven homogenization in avian communities”, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2011), in which, at the top of the “Results” section one finds “mean breeding season temperatures were variable but showed a general upward trend with a mean increase between 1994 and 2006 of 1.39 °C +/- SE 0.004”. This one sentence has three problems associated with it, which demonstrate the failure of peer review and basic auditing which seems so endemic to climate science. As a result, typical statements (for example by the BTO ecologist) that “we only use peer-reviewed science” and “the temperature trends may be out of date because of delays in the peer review system” seem farcical.
The first problem is that the 1.39°C is not a trend calculated by the customary method of ordinary least squares (OLS), but is simply the first point subtracted from the last point! I deduced this as a possibility by transcribing the graph in Figure 2 of the paper to obtain the following values in °C:
11.3,11.9,10.8,11.6,11.2,12.1,11.2,11.5,11.7,12.7,12.0,11.9,12.7
... and the only way I could see to get 1.39 was to take the difference between first and last, being 12.7-11.3 = 1.4. Even so I was surprised when the BTO ecologist confirmed this diagnosis.
The OLS trend of these data over the 12 years is 1.11 +/- 0.40°C, whereas the 1.39 figure is 25% higher. But it could have been worse: a line drawn between the third point (10.8) and the 10th point (12.7) point would have given 1.9°C over only 7 years!
The second problem is one of Chinese whispers. Davey et al uses the term “mean breeding season temperatures” but the BTO report talks of “spring temperatures”. The former is defined as April to July inclusive, whereas meteorological spring is defined as March to May inclusive.
Does this matter? Well, an independent series shows that there was not any statistically significant warming of English springs between 1994 and 2006. Yet people will read the BTO asserting that there was. The specifics are that the Central England Temperature (CET) mean monthly temperature series for 1994-2006 give 0.91°C for April to July (breeding season) over the 12 years and 0.49°C (not statistically significant) for the March to May data (spring).
The third problem is that the “+/- SE 0.004” is meaningless. It is not a credible estimate of the error of the trend. What appears to have happened (I cannot be certain and frankly it is so way out that it is hard to care) is that the temperature data used were actually interpolations (via a model) to a 1-km square resolution using more sparsely measured real data. Then the 1-km squares were treated as independent (which novice use of a statistical tool will naturally obtain) so the vast numbers of these squares drove down the measured uncertainty.
So here is the step by step recipe to exaggerate spring warming in Britain.
Thus the BTO, and no doubt other ecological publications, continue to trumpet the warming glories of the past at a time when, in fact, using annual figures the reverse is true. For there has been statistically significant British cooling over the last 11 years: the annual CET mean series 2002-2013 shows a statistically significant cooling of 1.07°C, which increases to 1.34°C if maximum temperatures are used instead of mean.
[Addition]
So here is the step by step recipe to exaggerate spring warming in Britain.
1. Hide behind peer review delays to avoid noting the 1994-2013 CET mean temperature spring trend of -0.003+/-0.034°C per annum.
2. Concentrating on 1994-2006 then, consider March-May CET means but reject them because the 0.49°C OLS trend over 12 years is not statistically significant.
3. Instead, use April-July (breeding season) as this gives 0.91°C over 12 years, which is statistically significant.
4. Better still, rather than using freely available CET series, use the data from Davey et al, which give 1.11°C over 12 years.
5. But why use a new fangled method like OLS when simply drawing a straight line through the end points gives 1.39°C? Yes, that value should keep the eco-troops happy, and the great British public surely won’t notice that this is not usually the way that science is done.
Reader Comments (27)
Well done.
Well worthy of a chorus, to the tune of The Garden Song:
Inch by inch, row by row
We shall make the rascals go
All it takes is to look, don't you know
For their case is so unsound,
Thanks for this useful analysis.
I'm sorry to see the BTO involved in this chicanery. It's one organisation I trusted having long since given up any hope of anything from the RSPB except variations on the theme "gie's yer money".
I await with bated breath, a response from Harry Huyton, 'Head of Climate Change at the RSPB' . [He's the guy who's so dumb, he believes wildlife is intelligent enough to distinguish between gas fracking sites and wind turbine installations as the greatest potential danger.]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26553117
BTW BH readers may be interested to know that he's still ignored a request to provide an answer for my grandson who enquired how wildlife would know the difference.
I was watching an episode of The West Wing last night ("Privateers") and it included an hydro-climatologist telling the President's Chef of Staff that temperatures in Alaska had increased by 7 degrees in 30 years. I Googled it and it appears to come from a New York Times article from 2002 which did exactly the same thing. They found that the average temperature in 1966 was seven degrees below the average temperature in 1998 and so ... seven degrees of warming.
Back in 2007 on a trip to the UK I purchased a copy of the RSPB "Handbook of British Birds." I was amused to find many of the individual "Conservation", "Population" and "Distribution" sections of various birds attributed population changes, real, likely or otherwise, to climate change. I am gratified to find this emphasis somewhat diluted in the 2014 edition and it gets scant reference in the latest and far more comprehensive RSPB "Birds of Britain and Europe."
Nonetheless I find many ornithologists both in the UK and NZ are heavily weighted to the effect climate holds on their feathered friends. Their fixated minds are made up and they are not interested in a balanced outlook. Certainly New Zealand Forest and Bird, the "Royal" descriptor is never used these days, has sold out totally. It is a socio-politcal plaything for whoever has the loudest voice near the top of the tree. Most recently there have been frequent anti-fracking noises.
This is for the birds.
Joe Public says:
"I await with bated breath, a response from Harry Huyton, 'Head of Climate Change at the RSPB' ... he believes wildlife is intelligent enough to distinguish between gas fracking sites and wind turbine installations as the greatest potential danger."
I see you haven't been keeping up with the stream of articles on the Wonders of Animal Cognition that have appeared in various news sources during the past several years. If parrots can talk and octupuses "are just like us" what's to wonder about native beasties being able to compare the relative dangers of gas fracking sites and wind turbine installations?
This is Richard Betts' area, I think. Maybe he can comment. His IPCC WG2 chapter 4 lists a variety of spring changes.
Section 4.3.2.1. Phenology
They explain how confident they are...
And on whether warming is responsible:
(so, they have high confidence and agreement but only medium evidence?)
Ruth
On any subject where it is demonstrable that he (or the consensus) is taking though his (or their) [self-snip] ([self-snip - but plural!]), he is nowhere to be seen.
Ruth, not the world, but tis our part of the world and it is up to date.
Spring in Edinburgh 2002 to 2014
Royal Botanic Garden - Edinburgh
..."the current trend (2014) has a slight positive value (i.e. spring happening later)"....
Phenology projects
We've been here before.
When seal populations were thought to be declining in the North sea, every ecologist and their dog went off blaming "chemicals". They didn't know what or where or when. They just 'knew' it was chemicals. A few years later I read that maybe it was actually a virus spreading through the population. Later than that we even got to read about how the mathematical complexities of population-dynamics could produce large population swings for no apparent reason.
They don't know a rat's arse about most of the reasons for anything ecological. And nobody appears to be teaching them this.
There seems to be a huge market these days for sciency sounding nonsense with lots of numbers from which progressives (or fake charity fund raisers) can pick and choose some alarming statistic to support their cause. It only goes to show just how innumerate most people in politics are. Sad really.
Jun 6, 2014 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart
Later than that we even got to read about how the mathematical complexities of population-dynamics could produce large population swings for no apparent reason.
=======================================================
Like this you mean? :-
http://puzzling.caret.cam.ac.uk/game.php?game=foodchain
Thank you, AIP, that is exactly what I was thinking about.
Hi Ruth
The mapping of agreement & evidence onto confidence is shown in Figure 1 of the Uncertainty Guidance note for AR5 authors.
In the matrix shown there, "high agreement, medium evidence" is in the middle box of the top row, and "medium agreement, robust evidence" is in the middle box of the right-hand column. The levels of confidence are highest in the top right (dark grey) and lowest in the bottom right. The two boxes I mention above therefore come fairly high up the scale towards the right-hand side, but not at the very highest. Hence "high confidence" as opposed to "very high" or "medium"(or below).
If confidence had been "medium" then this would have been either "high agreement, limited evidence" (top left), "medium agreement, medium evidence" (centre) or "low agreement, robust evidence" (bottom right).
All a bit subjective I know, but it does give some idea as to the relative levels of confidence in different conclusions and why these differ.
As for the header post above, well, it seems to be about temperature changes over the timescale of a decade or so, on the assumption that these tell us something about AGW (or lack of it). I think this is a bit of a red herring though, as both 1994-2006 and 2002-2013 are too short to be very indicative of the long-term trend. Regarding the LWEC report card statement:
I agree that this could be interpreted as indicating that the 1994-2006 change was anthropogenic in origin, but really that would be over- stretching things. All that paragraph actually tells us is that when there was a decade of warming (for whatever reason) then diversity increased.
I do however agree with the statement that:
as this is based on much more than a decade's data. Over the timescale of several decades, many biological events associated with the onset of spring have been occurring earlier (see the Parmesan paper in the section you quote from my IPCC chapter above, plus others cited in that paper and in my chapter).
One thing you can do is add BTO and LWEC to the list of "Rotten Institutions", those that have been captured by the green zealots and corrupted in process and policy. Not to be trusted, and not to be funded.
I remember reading within the same day this year that British bluebells were flowering earlier and the cherry blossom in the US was flowering later. So what? Must I panic?
Did the end of the last glaciation affect 'British habitat' at all? It probably couldn't cope with that at all.
Much to most climate scientists' consternation, the evidence suggests that Alaska has been cooling for the last 10 years:
The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska, G. Wendler, L. Chen and B. Moore, 2012.
Richard Betts says: "Over the timescale of several decades, many biological events associated with the onset of spring have been occurring earlier."
Yes, that would be because of global warming (however caused) up to circa 2000. But the assumption of LWEC and BTO is that warming is going to continue, and they are happy to quote out-of-date and improperly peer-reviewed figures to support such suggestions, and mislead the general populace, and that is the point of my article.
I was interested to read above about the "Edinburgh Spring Index", which is new to me. No doubt the index gave an early value this year (8th warmest spring in CET max back to 1878), and a very late one last year (coldest for 50 years).
See-sawing temperatures: ice-age theory anyone?
Anyway, thanks to all commenters.
I have just noticed that there was a small part of my article missing. [Moderators: is it worth inserting it into the main posting?] The missing part is points 1.-5. below, thusly:
[Done. 11.30am 7.6.14. TM]
"
So here is the step by step recipe to exaggerate spring warming in Britain.
1. Hide behind peer review delays to avoid noting the 1994-2013 CET mean temperature spring trend of -0.003+/-0.034°C per annum.
2. Concentrating on 1994-2006 then, consider March-May CET means but reject them because the 0.49°C OLS trend over 12 years is not statistically significant.
3. Instead, use April-July (breeding season) as this gives 0.91°C over 12 years, which is statistically significant.
4. Better still, rather than using freely available CET series, use the data from Davey et al, which give 1.11°C over 12 years.
5. But why use a new fangled method like OLS when simply drawing a straight line through the end points gives 1.39°C? Yes, that value should keep the eco-troops happy, and the great British public surely won’t notice that this is not usually the way that science is done.
"
Thanks Richard. Yes, I know IPCC lays down rules for reporting confidence, and I am sure they were followed conscientiously in your chapter.
But the idea that 'agreement' and 'evidence' can simply be averaged (and particularly for the average to be 'rounded up') leads to absurdities.
What if there was 'very high agreement' and 'no evidence at all'? Does that result in 'medium confidence'? How can 'confidence' be higher than the lower of the two components?
There's also no way of checking what the authors mean by 'agreement' in each case - how many studies were assessed - is it agreement between or within studies - can an author agree with themselves if all their papers say the same thing?
The guidance note gives no definition of 'degree of agreement' - except a brief note describing how it was used in AR4 in an appendix. The reader is several times referred to para 8, which simply says:
This paragraph seems to conflate 'evidence' with 'agreement'. How does 'consistency of evidence' differ from 'agreement'? Anyway, Richard, I don't envy you having to sort all that out, and the attempt to quantify uncertainty is laudable.
Ruth
Dr Betts merely obfuscates. Everything supports cAGW.
Paul Hudson has a post about this spring being the third hottest since the universe begun. I pointed out that the word hottest isn't really the right word to use avid that most "normal" people would consider spring as nothing more than mild.
Additionally, I pointed out that we should be grateful for mild winters and springs simply because it costs less for us to heat our homes especially thanks to catastrophiliac energy policies that keep pushing our energy prices up thanks to pointless green energy!
Naturally this went down about as well as a cup of cold sick with the green religious fundamentalists who consider all acts of skeptical questioning heresy.
Mailman
Richard Betts claims to be a physicist, yet everything he does seems to be based on hand-waving arguments and a lack of hard evidence. Strange really that a physicist should have gone into soft science - follow the money I guess.
"A combined analysis of 203 species suggests Northern Hemisphere spring advancement of 2.8±0.35 days per decade (Parmesan, 2007)."
This reminds me of how I got frozen out of a climate-obsessed wildlife protection committee by pointing out that bird migration data has always been collected in the form of dates when birds arrived or left and consequently had an inherent uncertainty of +\- 0.5 days, consequently making their worrying over statistics showing changes of e. g. 0.08 days/year kompletely meaningless.
Mailman: re the 3rd hottest spring since ..., it depends on which figures one uses. The following excerpt from the CET maximum series, which is the one I usually concentrate on, shows 2014 as 8th warmest.
126 8.53 1943 14.03 1997 21.70 1949 14.70 2001 12
127 8.60 1899 14.07 2009 21.73 1947 14.80 2009 11
128 8.73 1949 14.10 1943 21.93 1933 14.83 2003 10
129 8.83 1995 14.10 1959 22.03 1983 14.93 1995 9
130 8.90 2008 14.20 2014 22.10 1911 14.97 1999 8
rank DJF MAM JJA SON -rank
131 8.90 2014 14.40 1990 22.13 1975 15.00 1949 7
132 8.97 1990 14.47 1948 22.17 1899 15.00 1978 6
133 9.03 1998 14.53 2007 22.17 2006 15.13 2005 5
134 9.07 2007 14.57 1945 22.27 2003 15.90 1959 4
135 9.20 1975 14.57 2003 22.50 1995 15.97 2011 3
136 9.33 1989 14.87 2011 23.47 1976 16.23 2006 2
137 15.73 1893 1
Considering the frequency of the wind being south to south-west it is hardly surprising.
PTF