General AGW discussion thread

[William]

Nonsense. Schwartz et al. say: "The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors: the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols;" IPCC's best estimate being 3K. How you go to negative climate senstitivity from there? Schwartz et al. also discuss this, provide a quote where they suggest that climate sensitivity is negative.

Ari,
You do not understand the implications of Schwartz et al's finding. Try Roy Spencer's blog. Compare one hypothesis to other.

The implication is that the planet's response to a change in forcing is negative rather than positive. That is what is meant by "less sensitive". There is no proof aerosols increased.

Negative feedback is consistent with Spencer's and Lindzen's recently published papers. Spence was invited to make a presentation of his findings at this Fall AGU meeting.

If the planet's response to forcing is negative rather than positive than the entire dangerous climate change problem goes away. The estimate response to a doubling of CO2 is less 1.2C. (It is 1.2C if the planet's response is zero feedback.) Based on the recent data (negative feedback) a doubling of the CO2 will cause the planet to warm less than 0.75C.

The goal of the last climate summit was a maximum of 2C. Mission accomplished.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Once again you are ignoring all the questions presented to you and just repeating your arguments over and over. You have been told before how badly flawed Lindzen's latest work is and yet you keep pushing it. When one is testing a hypothesis, the evidence against the hypothesis is extremely important. One can easily find some supporting evidence for any hypothesis, but even one contradicting piece of evidence is enough to falsify the hypothesis. You are only collecting supporting evidence and ignoring all the contradictory evidence. A good example is that when you are shown observations that don't fit to Svensmark's hypothesis, you just offer one or two more papers that have reported some supporting evidence and then claim that papers showing contradictory evidence must be in error.

[Atraveller]

I think this is probably the best place for this link:

USGS chart Ice Shelves Disappearing

[Swift]

Most of the carbon cycle consists of the same carbon being absorbed and re-released over an over again. Nearly all the carbon released in the normal carbon cycle was absorbed within years or decades. IOW there is no real way the natural carbon cycle can be anything but balanced because there is no new carbon involved.

My bold.

But are hydrocarbons such as coal or crude oil, that have been sequestered in the Earth for hundreds millions of years, part of the current natural carbon cycle? I would think not. So, if we dig them up and burn them, aren't we in effect adding new carbon (or at least carbon that has been hidden away for millions of years)?

Sure, it will eventually reach a new equilibrium, but, not at the same equilibrium it was at before.

[jlhredshift]

My bold.

But are hydrocarbons such as coal or crude oil, that have been sequestered in the Earth for hundreds millions of years, part of the current natural carbon cycle? I would think not. So, if we dig them up and burn them, aren't we in effect adding new carbon (or at least carbon that has been hidden away for millions of years)?

Sure, it will eventually reach a new equilibrium, but, not at the same equilibrium it was at before.

There is a continual global production of 14C at a rate of 2 per square centimeter per second (Beer, J 2007).

[Atraveller]

My bold.

But are hydrocarbons such as coal or crude oil, that have been sequestered in the Earth for hundreds millions of years, part of the current natural carbon cycle? I would think not. So, if we dig them up and burn them, aren't we in effect adding new carbon (or at least carbon that has been hidden away for millions of years)?

Sure, it will eventually reach a new equilibrium, but, not at the same equilibrium it was at before.

In The 11th Hour - Steven Lipkis had a great way of explaining it.

He refered to current Carbon (and Current Sunshine) - and ancient Carbon (and ancient Sunshine)

I wish I could find a transcript - but paraphrasing his point - Until the end of the 18th century, humans lived on current sunshine (and current carbon) and the system was balance - no net gain or loss other than naturally occuring.

At the start of the industrial revolution we began to use ancient sunshine (and sequestered carbon - or ancient carbon) and that has begun to unbalance the system.

[buzgz]

The IPCC seems to be thrown under the bus by the Institute Of Physics in it's memorandum submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee :

http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/C...file_39010.pdf

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.



The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.



The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.





What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?



1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.



3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:



� those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

� historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.



4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.



5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.



6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.



7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.



8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.



9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.





Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?



10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.



11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.



12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.





How independent are the other two international data sets?



13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.



The Institute of Physics

February 2010

[GOURDHEAD]

How has global average temperature been defined (it's calculation constrained):

Are the cells for which the temperature is being reported of the same practical size over air, land, and sea?

Is simultaniety of measurement across the entire Earth important and within what tolerances?

Within the atmosphere how many altitude points need be measured to complete a single sample?

What is the minimum volume of a cell comprising a meaningful datapoint?

How frequently does a complete set of datapoints have to be collected to be meaningful?

Since like volumes of different media have largely varying thermal capacities (heat content), is weighting of the temperatures of various cells significant and at what precision?

How valid is the establishment of a reference global average temperature in the late 1800's against which to compare modern satellite data?

For satellite measured temperature, how are various altitude datapoints made distinguishable from one another?

[Jetlack]

The IPCC seems to be thrown under the bus by the Institute Of Physics in it's memorandum submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee :

http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/C...file_39010.pdf

Looks like the IOP say exactly what the skeptics have been saying for yonkers.

Come on folks, where is the vitriol against the IOP? :-)

[buzgz]

Looks like the IOP say exactly what the skeptics have been saying for yonkers.

Come on folks, where is the vitriol against the IOP? :-)

The silence about the IOP's response is awkward. no ?

[buzgz]

I expressed my thoughts on the AGW issues here:

http://www.bautforum.com/science-tec...ml#post1648378

The thing that I find most depressing about the entire AGW question, and climate science in general, is the gatekeeping of the peer review process that has apparently occurred. How can anyone truly trust any of this science ?

I have casually checked one Mann paper, MBH99, and I have reservations as I have stated in the last two days.

I'm at the point where I believe the earth is warming, has been since the LIA, and beyond that I trust little.

And I am disappointed in the lack of regard for these issues expressed here and on the E-mails thread. Is what I have seen in "climategate" representative of how science is done now? It sure wasn't that way back in the day when I was publishing papers.

Where is the outrage ?

In light of the IOP stance, I'm less lonesome.

[lomiller1]

How could you possibly trust science if there were no gatekeeper on what gets into the peer reviewed literature? At what point do you think it’s a good idea to let any crackpot write anything they want and publish it in science or nature? The notion is beyond ridiculous.

Spotting garbage papers and calling out people (and sometimes journals) who publish garbage papers is a fundamental part of the process. You can’t have science without this.

[dmr81]

In climate science the Hockey Team served as self-appointed gatekeepers of the peer review process.

Provide details of any papers that you think were improperly rejected.

[dmr81]

http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/C...file_39010.pdf

The document you have cited is simply a list of unsubstantiated claims. If you have any evidence for any of them, provide it.

[buzgz]

The document you have cited is simply a list of unsubstantiated claims. If you have any evidence for any of them, provide it.

It's not my list. It was compiled by the Institute of Physics, one of the more prestigious in the UK. I suggest you contact them for your evidence.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the record of climate science, as practiced by the Hockey Team (Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al).

Go ahead and provide evidence that their science is flawed, if you are suggesting that.

Back up also your other claims with evidence, please.

[dmr81]

It's not my list. It was compiled by the Institute of Physics, one of the more prestigious in the UK. I suggest you contact them for your evidence.

They did not provide any evidence. As such, their claims are worthless.

[dmr81]

In climate science the Hockey Team served as self-appointed gatekeepers of the peer review process.

Provide details of any papers that you think were improperly rejected.

[nothing]

Withdraw that claim.

[Strange]

It's not my list. It was compiled by the Institute of Physics, one of the more prestigious in the UK. I suggest you contact them for your evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...ogical_fallacy

It must be true, my dad said so.

[Canis Lupus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...ogical_fallacy

It must be true, my dad said so.

The very fallacy AGW advocates rely upon.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Looks like the IOP say exactly what the skeptics have been saying for yonkers.

Come on folks, where is the vitriol against the IOP? :-)

I do not read it that the IOP is denying AGW. I read it that the IOP seeks to restore the reputation of practitioners of scientific research.

The IOP appear to be in favour of integrity in data analysis and scientific method. They could hardly be in favour of anything else. I am not aware that "skeptics" are uniformly in favour of integrity in data analysis and scientific method. The data analysis methods of AGW skeptics frequently lack integrity, eg Lomborg, Monckton.

The IOP are saying what has to be said, namely that science has to be carried out in a way that its integrity is transparent, otherwise it brings it into disrepute, even if the conclusions are sound. The fact that a few researchers have been caught out for lack of integrity is a common situation in many areas of science, and does not usually bring down with it entire edifices of research. The "hockey stick" is far from being the only evidence for AGW, nor even necessary evidence of it. I'm comfortable with the scenario that this and a number of other papers are, on more detailed examination, don't hold water.

[Webbo]

The data analysis methods of AGW skeptics frequently lack integrity, eg Lomborg, Monckton.

How fortunate that you are able to deterime this. Maybe they should hide their methods to avoid criticism, as according to Professor Jones, that is the "standard practice" in climate science.

[buzgz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...ogical_fallacy

It must be true, my dad said so.

I happen to think that the questioning of good scientific practice carries more weight when it comes from an organization dedicated to such.

Your mileage may vary.

[buzgz]

Go ahead and provide evidence that their science is flawed, if you are suggesting that.

Back up also your other claims with evidence, please.

You have arrived at the heart of the issue with this request. Because of the lack of data disclosure and the secrecy of methodology, the Hockey Team has managed to render the historical temperature record of the world suspect. I cannot say with any certitude anything about this record.

The Royal Society of Chemistry sums it up this way:

4. The apparent resistance of researchers from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. The true nature of science dictates that research is transparent and robust enough to survive scrutiny. A lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny, even if this conjecture is not well-founded. This has far-reaching consequences for the reputation of science as a whole, with the ability to undermine the public's confidence in science.

Their complete response can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc4202.htm

I think that those familiar with the public record of the behavior of the Hockey Team agree that they have abused the scientific method. For any unfamiliar with their record, I can only suggest Google, as the rules of this thread prevent me from directing you.

[Klausnh]

The IPCC seems to be thrown under the bus by the Institute Of Physics in it's memorandum submitted to the UK Parliamentary Committee :

http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/C...file_39010.pdf

IOP clarification

The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.

That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.

[Atraveller]

Article in the NY Times which relates to this thread:


Climate Science Defended

Interesting quote from a climate skeptic:

“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”

second quote from the article to balance that last quote:

The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

[tusenfem]

Please, NO newspapers etc.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the record of climate science, as practiced by the Hockey Team (Jones, Mann, Briffa, et al).

Go ahead and provide evidence that their science is flawed, if you are suggesting that.

You didn't provide an answer to this.

Back up also your other claims with evidence, please.

You didn't do this either (providing something for one claim out of many doesn't quite cut it).

But perhaps we need to be more specific because it seems that each claim one has to ask for evidence separately. Why don't you give the evidence already when you make the claims?

In climate science the Hockey Team served as self-appointed gatekeepers of the peer review process.

dmr81 has already asked you the details on this but you have ignored that. I would like to see you support this claim by evidence. You claim this as a fact so you of course should have the evidence. What papers have they blocked from publication and how they did it?

In many cases apparently without the knowledge of even the publication editors, the Hockey Team members were able to influence and in some cases determine exactly who would peer review which paper.

How is this supposed to work when the editor is the one who sends the papers to the referees? Show us your evidence about this. Particularly, show us that it was "in many cases".

In addition, in many cases they were able to see that papers with viewpoints and/or conclusions different from those of the Hockey Team members were simply not published and certainly not included in IPCC findings (in some cases because they were not published in peer reviewed journals).

Back this up with evidence, don't forget to show that it was "in many cases".

In addition, the Hockey Team members routinely withheld their data so that it couldn't be addressed by others, while freely sharing the same data amongst other team members (apparently in violation of some agreements they may have had not to do so, if they are to be believed).

Provide proof of this claim, show us especially that it was a routine.

By the way, it is common in other sciences too (astronomy for example) that not all the data and methods are presented with the journal publications.

Additionally, they were able to make sure that the data was not requested by the peer reviewers.

How did they do it? Provide evidence please.

As recently as this afternoon, Phil Jones in testimony before MPs on the Science and Technology Committee said it was not "standard practice" in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

Provide evidence please.

Because of the lack of data disclosure and the secrecy of methodology, the Hockey Team has managed to render the historical temperature record of the world suspect.

GISS provides full data and methodology. Back this up with real science instead of opinion pieces please.

I think that those familiar with the public record of the behavior of the Hockey Team agree that they have abused the scientific method. For any unfamiliar with their record, I can only suggest Google, as the rules of this thread prevent me from directing you.

Ahh, so all your information comes from blogs... It might do you good to actually read some scientific publications. As the rules in this thread quite clearly suggest that we should concentrate on the science, why are you then feeding us this conspiracy nonsense?

[tusenfem]

In climate science the Hockey Team served as self-appointed gatekeepers of the peer review process. In many cases apparently without the knowledge of even the publication editors, the Hockey Team members were able to influence and in some cases determine exactly who would peer review which paper. They sometimes peer reviewed papers for each other.

This seems rather weird. As many papers are submitted to JGR or GRL, it is the author herself, who gives a list of possible referees for said paper. The (topical) editor then sends out several requests for refereeing the paper to persons on the list (unless it is clear they would be conflicted, like e.g. working at the same institute) and when 2 or 3 accepted the task, the process is on its way.

Unless you can show that your hockey team is actually in the editor's seat there is hardly a chance that they can influence who is refereeing which paper.

I also get papers to referee from authors with whom I have written papers or with whom I am good friends. When I find that I am too close, like actually working with that person at the same time, I recline to review the paper, although I am flattered in a sense, that they value my opinion about their work enough to get my comments.

[mugaliens]

Please, NO newspapers etc.

I'm sorry, Tus, mod in red in all, but our media takes fairly good (not great, but good) strides to ensure accuracy.

As such, they're up for discussion, good or bad.

If you'd rather BAUT become a highly-sterilized non-media and non-user environment, so be it.

I've yet to see the one without the other, though.