“Pausebuster” in Trouble?

It appears this blog on climate change is coming out precisely at the right time. A new controversy has blown up in the last few days… and I doubt that many of you have heard of it. The controversy is related to the “the Karl study” or “Pausebuster” that was released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in June 2015 before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, France. However, the study used seems to have been created with unverified data collected from an unsubstantiated method. A scandal may very well be brewing over at the NOAA.

The NOAA is the world’s leading source on climate data, making it one of the world’s most influential organizations on the topic of climate science. The paper was led by Thomas Karl, who was director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information. The study was obtained by using two datasets, a surface measure of sea water and a land temperature dataset. At the time of its release, the study was considered a bomb dropped on climate change deniers as the paper denied previously made claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a slowdown in global warming, known as the “climate change hiatus,” had taken place between 1998 and 2012. Based on the previous IPCC study, it was reasoned that carbon emissions may not have had as much effect on the Earth’s temperature as previously believed. Yet, with the new NOAA “Pausebuster” story, that newfound reasoning was disregarded and climate change deniers received a smack in the face.

The surface water dataset used by Thomas Karl and his team was the new Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4 for short. The method almost tripled the sea warming trend from 2000 to 2014 from 0.036 Celsius to 0.099 Celsius. Using the ERSSTv4 method shows massive increases in the overall heating trend during that time period. The methods for collecting this data is now being questioned though. A whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, who spent 40 years in meteorology and climate science, recently came forward. Dr. Bates worked for the NOAA for many of those 40 years and helped push the organization towards better practices of archiving data. He recently delivered testimony that the data used for the method was manipulated to show a larger warming trend. Per Dr. Bates, the data from buoys was adjusted upwards to match the data more closely taken in from ships. The problem with that, however, is ships are widely considered as bad places to receive temperature data from as the temperature of the water is increased as it meets the heat created by the ships’ engines. Climate scientists have already decreased surface water temperatures from previous decades to counter for this fact because most surface water readings from previous decades were received from ships. The questions are now being raised about why a new method would then reincorporate the ship readings if they are already considered as “bad” datasets. Data may have been adjusted by up to 0.12 Celsius due to the difference in buoys and ships. Further investigation and studies will be needed to confirm that number. The ERSSTv4 method has now been deemed unreliable enough that a new version 5 is in the works which will undo the adjustments of buoy data and include incorporating satellite data and measurements from the ARGO buoy system.

The other part of the data was the measurements of land temperature using the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). There are apparent problems with the GHCN system that have kept it in testing to present day. The software for the system uses a process known as “pairwise homogeneity adjustment” that spots outliers in the readings from weather stations by comparing that reading to readings from other nearby weather stations. At the time that the “Pausebuster” was produced, this method was still in its earliest stages of testing. Even worse, the GHCN system has faced terrible software bugs that have caused data to be mistranslated or result in total system crashes. The current system of GHCN today is very much unlike the system used to produce this study and it still has yet to be deemed reliable and accurate enough for consistent use. Since the system today is still unverified as effective, how accurate could the system have been two years before?

Another controversy related to the study is that not all the methods surrounding the study seemed to have been archived correctly. This part seems to be the haziest at the moment. Some scientists claim there is enough that they can follow the reasoning and methods used for the study but not everything is available to looked at. It’s not clear at the present time whether some of the data may have never been archived, if there was a system failure that caused data loss, or if the data is archived but not available at the present time.

There have also been charges the paper was rushed to publication in order to influence the Paris Climate Summit, but this seems to be a moot point. Per various publications, the plans for the Paris summit had been underway for several years and the paper had little to no effect on those plans as countries headed into it.

The final part of the controversy revolving around this study is the refusal of the NOAA to comply with subpoenas from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology dating back to October 2015. The committee requested all documentation on the study including internal communication. The refusal by the NOAA to turn over these documents adds to the questioning about how well the data was archived and if there is anything that is being hidden.

From current information available to the public, this seems like a terribly flawed study. Several groups including Berkeley Earth and UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre have reportedly been able to repeat almost the same results to the data though. However, their methods will need to be evaluated just like this current study is being evaluated and investigated. The goal is to create the most reliable and accurate study possible in order to see the effects of humans on Earth’s climate and understand how severe the problem is or how miniscule it is. From this point in time though, it appears the “Pausebuster” study is going to be tossed into the garbage heap of history to serve as an example of what not to do. Perhaps this study will lead to new and more accurate studies. Maybe in the end, this study may be found to be on the verge of something groundbreaking. Only time can tell as increasingly more facts relating to this case come to light.

If you’re interested, here are some sources to read:

Daily Mail

Snopes

National Review

E&E News

Daily Caller

Reflections on “Awareness: An Underappreciated Skill”

First-off, I would like to apologize for my cold during the recording. I tried what I could and even waited several days, recording on occasion to see how I sounded, but it was of no avail. However, I think that is one of the challenges of doing a recording. Sometimes we get sick and it hurts our overall performance when speaking. I realize now why the podcasters and YouTubers that I watch apologize when they are sick. To the audience, they sound at less than peak performance and to themselves they probably sound even worse. That is at least how I felt. I definitely respect their willingness to give it a go though, no matter how their voice sounds.

Another challenge with doing this type of genre is knowing what program I should use. If I wanted to use GarageBand, I would have had to make a reservation at the library and used one of their rooms. To be honest, the thought just made me a little uncomfortable. Having people around watching what I’m doing just scares me a little. Maybe I’m overthinking it though. So I tried other programs I might like. I gave programs like Audacity a try, but it was painful to use for me. Maybe with a lot of time to mess around with it and I could have gotten a better feel, but I just could not get the program to cut where I wanted or delete segments. A challenge is definitely finding a program you can effectively use and be comfortable with. I eventually settled with VoiceThread. I was comfortable with the program and it helped me be comfortable as I recorded. When we are just typing an essay, programs like Microsoft Word and Google Docs are not very different. So there was just a new and interesting element in this genre.

The last real challenge I felt was figuring out how I wanted to perform my “This I Believe.'” Which parts do I want to stress or where do I want to pause? When speaking in public, it doesn’t seem as big of a deal. People are really only listening to your speech once. With this “This I Believe,” people can listen to your podcast multiple times and know if something just seems off. It is a challenge to really practice and perfect how you are going to perform your script. Then it is even harder to get that perfect performance.

On the flip side, I liked doing the “This I Believe” podcast because it gave me a chance to practice my speaking without speaking in front of an audience. I won’t lie and tell you public speaking doesn’t bother me, it does. It’s weird, I had an easier time doing public speaking when I was younger. The advantage is, you also get to listen to your own voice and how you pronounce words. I realized when I was doing this that for many words I don’t put emphasis on hard T’s. When I was practicing, I tried to teach myself to work on that. The podcast gave me an opportunity to improve my speaking. I hadn’t realized that there were certain speaking problems I was having. I need to enunciate better for example.

Another pleasure is the fact that you get to listen to people instead of just reading their paper. I think it gives a deeper insight into how people write. You get to compare how you read their papers to how they wrote their papers. Maybe they place stress on different areas or pause differently than myself. I think it exposes us to more style differences.

Finally, I think speaking adds a new element of personal connection between the writer/speaker and the audience. I believe that a genre like “This I Believe” adds to our ability to understand the mood, emotions, and purpose that the author intends. When you are talking about things that are important to you or what you believe in, that is important. I think it really helps the genre move beyond other forms of writing.

Some of the decisions I made surrounding my “This I Believe” podcast was choosing not to incorporate sound effects or music. When listening to the best of the genre, I noticed that most did not use sound effects or music. I figured there had to be a reason. For me, I wanted the people to listen and think about what I was saying and not be distracted. My topic was on awareness and how ironic would it be if I reduced your ability to be aware of what my podcast was saying if I included elements that could distract you. I thought about using them. Maybe I would use cheering when I stole second or some music in the background, but after a little bit of experimenting I realized that it just didn’t work. I want my readers and listeners to think about what I am saying and ponder the importance of awareness in their life. I want people to ask themselves: “How important is awareness to me and how do I use it?” or “Am I self-aware of my limits and my flaws?” I feel that incorporating music and effects would have weakened my overall purpose. Maybe it would have helped make my podcast sound better, but does that help people to learn why I think awareness is important? My answer was no.

One of the things I did do was emphasize “Safe!” in my podcast. I was trying to imitate the referee, and I hoped by doing that I could instill how I felt when I stole second onto my audience. The feeling was amazing and it is why that game is so memorable compared to many others I have played in my life. That steal beats the time I stole home. Even though stealing home is harder and much more rare, this instance happened in a much more substantial moment. I hope when you listen to my podcast, you can feel some of that excitement.

Another delivery decision I made was to make a slight pause after I stated “I believe.” I wanted to add a little bit of emphasis to the fact this is something I believe in. I really do find awareness to be an important skill and tool. I’m one of those people who is constantly examining their surroundings and considering what options are available or examining myself. I felt the added pause helped add that emphasis to “I believe”.

Awareness: An Underappreciated Skill

Awareness: An Underappreciated Skill [Transcript]

I believe that it is important to always be aware of our surroundings and to be self-aware of who we are. What are my limitations? What are my capabilities? What are my available options at the given moment? This includes trusting my “gut-feeling” which, in essence, is an intuition of my subconscious awareness.

In my mind, the epitome of this belief was an event that took place on March 23, 2016.

My baseball team was in a district playoff game. It was the seventh inning and I was standing on first base with a chance to score the game winning run and, in the process, help us continue towards our goal of achieving a third straight district championship appearance. Our batter was given the sign to sacrifice bunt, which meant I was to only run to second when I saw that ball hit the ground. The batter fouled off the first pitch. Then as I watched the coach giving signals again, I suddenly felt that I had a tremendous opportunity. The pitcher, to avoid the bunt, would most likely throw an off-speed pitch or throw it in a bad spot to disadvantage the batter. I made a decision – I was going to steal second on my own accord.

3.6 seconds. That is the time it would take for me to steal second, but would it be fast enough? The pitcher was their ace, their catcher had already made our lives on the base paths difficult, and I was making a decision without my coach’s orders. All I had was the confidence that I would do it. When that pitcher lifted his foot, I took off with absolute clarity of mind. I was going to get there. 3 seconds later and I was watching in slow-motion as my foot slid under the second baseman’s glove and inched into the bag.

Safe!

With that steal I had changed the game. Our strategy was altered. Our batter was then able to bunt down third, move me up, and manage to beat out the play at first. A few pitches later and I jogged across home on a passed ball, scoring the winning run.

What started with a feeling opened my eyes to new possibilities. I was self-aware of my limitations and capabilities. I needed at least 3.6 seconds to reach the bag. Based on what I saw from the players that would be involved in the play, I could do that. I was also aware that this was the best opportunity I had.

The benefits of awareness and self-awareness go beyond moments like this. Awareness is a daily tool in helping decide whether taking action or practicing patience is the best option, or whether it is better to listen or to speak. Self-awareness even helps with self-improvement as the use of knowledge about oneself can help with the decision-making process or correcting faults. Truly, these are skills that will never cease in their value on my life.