Climategate (GW email leak)

[iNow]

What led to your decision to exclude non-land based measurements when calculating the annual global average? AFAICT, you're looking at land only, and ignoring readings over oceans, hence the different data. Perhaps I'm mistaken?

[swansont]

Another graph:

 

 

Those two graphs are qualitatively similar: Both show a decline up to around 1910, significant warming the next thirty years, a decline in the 1940s, more or less flat from about 1945 to 1975, and a marked warming from 1975 to 2005.

 

But this graph excludes 1850-1890, which is more or less flat, and your own statement was

Yes, it has warmed since the mid 1800s. Most of that warming occurred well before we pumped immense amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

which puts the midpoint at ~1930. Was there more warming before or after that point, in the period in question?

[D H]

What led to your decision to exclude non-land based measurements when calculating the annual global average? AFAICT, you're looking at land only, and ignoring readings over oceans, hence the different data. Perhaps I'm mistaken?

 

Perhaps you are mistaken. Where did you get the idea that I am excluding non-land based measurements?

 

Your graph is obviously from the Hadley Center; they are proposing to reevaluate their dataset given the email fiasco. It will take a couple of years to accomplish that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But this graph excludes 1850-1890, which is more or less flat, and your own statement was

 

 

which puts the midpoint at ~1930. Was there more warming before or after that point, in the period in question?

1850 to 1883 was relatively flat. The Earth cooled from 1883 to 1910 or so, at least partly due to Krakatoa.

 

The Earth has warmed considerably since the mid 1800s. I don't disagree with that. The bulk of the warming occurred during two thirty year periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2005. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere during that latter period was significantly greater than during the former. Yet the warming during those two periods are comparable. Some researchers attribute greater warming to the 1910-1940 period than the latter period. Other researchers attribute the greater amount of warming to the latter half. This group figures very prominently in the email fiasco.

 

 

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? A Holocene Optimum?

[iNow]

Perhaps you are mistaken.

My apologies. It turns out that I was mistaken.

 

 

1850 to 1883 was relatively flat. The Earth cooled from 1883 to 1910 or so, at least partly due to Krakatoa.

 

The Earth has warmed considerably since the mid 1800s. I don't disagree with that. The bulk of the warming occurred during two thirty year periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2005. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere during that latter period was significantly greater than during the former. Yet the warming during those two periods are comparable.

I'm surprised to hear you discuss this so simplistically, DH, as you truly are smarter than that. Climate is a complex system, and it's about more than simple 1:1 relationships. In essence, there are other factors to consider besides just "CO2 concentrations."

 

In that spirit, I believe I have found a very well referenced and internally consistent answer to the concern you have posed regarding the different temperature levels in the 1910 - 1940 period versus the 1975 - 2005 period, and I will share that below.

 

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_345.pdf

Instead, and much more indisputable, we propose here that the warming was caused by the steadily increasing transport of warm water into the Barents Sea driven by increasing south westerly to westerly winds between Spitsbergen and the northernmost Norwegian coast. Between 1920 and 1940 the observed pressure gradient increased by some 8 mb corresponding to an average geostrophic wind anomaly of 6 ms-1. This lead to increased transport of warm water into the Barents Sea, with a major reduction of sea ice in this region, where the largest atmospheric temperature anomalies also occur. As we will further demonstrate using model simulations, the reduced sea ice coverage is the main reason for the increased Arctic temperature. A close link between observed sea ice and temperature variability has also been established by century long sea ice analysis (Johannessen et al., 2003, Zakharov, 1997), supporting the model simulations.

 

<...>

 

The Arctic 1920-1940 warming is one of the most puzzling climate anomalies of the 20th century. Over a period of some fifteen years the Arctic warmed by 1.7 °C and remained warm for more than a decade. This is a warming in the region comparable in magnitude what is to be expected as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change in the next several decades. A gradual cooling commenced in the late 1940s bringing the temperature back to much lower values although not as cold as before the warming started. Here, we have shown that this warming was associated and presumably initiated by a major increase in the westerly to south-westerly wind north of Norway leading to enhanced atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the comparatively warm North Atlantic Current through the passage between northern Norway and Spitsbergen into the Barents Sea. It should be stressed that the increased winds were not related to the NAO, which in fact weakened during the 1920s and remained weak for the whole period of the warm Arctic anomaly. We have shown that the process behind the warming was most likely reduced sea ice cover, mainly in the Barents Sea. This is not an unexpected finding because of the climate effect of sea ice compared to that of an open sea, but intriguing since previously available sea ice data (Chapman and Walsh, 1993) did not indicate a reduced sea ice cover in the 1930s and 1940s. However, as we have shown here recent sea ice data sets (Johannessen et al., 2003 for a detailed presentation) actually showed a retreat in this period. Experiments with an atmospheric model forced with different sea ice data sets as well examination of a coupled model integration are in quantitative agreement with the observational data, broadly suggesting a 1°C warming for a reduction of the Arctic sea ice with 1Mkm

²

.

 

An evaluation of the coupled model suggests that a major part of the warming is caused by transport of warm ocean water, in the upper most 125 m of the ocean model, into the Barents Sea, driven by stronger than the normal surface winds.

[D H]

I'm surprised to hear you discuss this so simplistically, DH, as you truly are smarter than that. Climate is a complex system, and it's about more than simple 1:1 relationships. In essence, there are other factors to consider besides just "CO2 concentrations."

I didn't explain anything as a simple 1:1 relation. I just asked a question: How to explain the comparable warming from 1910-1940 versus 1975-2005?

 

How do you know that CO₂ concentrations are the dominant factor in the 1975-2005 interval? As you said, there other factors at play; the climate is complex. Is it just possible that these other factors dominated over the CO₂ forcings during the 1975-2005 period as well? Note well: This is exactly what some legitimate climate researchers claim.

 

Another key question: What is the nature of the feedbacks? This is one of the key questions. The IPCC posits significant positive feedbacks, others such as Lindzen and Choi posit negative feedbacks. The alarmist predictions in the IPCC reports fall apart without those significant positive feedbacks.

 

 

I'm in the midst of writing a paper (overdue), so my participation is going to be a bit sporadic. I'll be back when I get another case of writer's block.

[iNow]

I didn't explain anything as a simple 1:1 relation. I just asked a question: How to explain the comparable warming from 1910-1940 versus 1975-2005?

I offered a source which does exactly that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just asked a question: How to explain the comparable warming from 1910-1940 versus 1975-2005?

More here:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm

 

 

 

How do you know that CO₂ concentrations are the dominant factor in the 1975-2005 interval?

More here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Detection_vs._attribution

 

 

As for Lindzen and others, it would sure help his case if he could offer a plausible alternative mechanism which could account for the changes we are seeing. Barring that, all indicators point to human contributions of CO2 as the primary driver and the evidence in favor of that conclusion is abundant.

Edited December 6, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

P70SlEqX7oY

[bascule]

This is a pretty crazy story, suggesting the hack was the work of the Russian secret service:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.html

[Pangloss]

In an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, the paper's editorial board pointed out that unless research organizations begin to operate in a more open manner, they run the risk of not only creating more suspicion, but actually hurting the science itself. The piece accuses major organizations, including NASA, NOAA and NCDC, of resisting freedom-of-information requests as well as internal efforts by their own researchers to acquire data.

 

Often, when independents obtain raw temperature data or computer codes, they do uncover flaws, thus advancing climate science—the "sunlight" now shining on CRU's data and codes is doing just that. That's what motivated Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Christopher Horner to request a slew of information from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which has already corrected its temperature records thanks to Mr. McIntyre's probing. Mr. Horner told us he wants "an entire accounting of rolling, relevant data, adjustments, codes, annotations and of course internal discussion about the frequent revisions."

 

Two years later, the requests are unmet. A NASA spokesman said "We're clearly late, but we are working on it." Probably wise, considering Mr. Horner is set to sue, and two U.S. senators have asked NASA's Inspector General to investigate.

 

When it comes to questionable accounting, independent researchers cite the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its National Climate Data Center (NCDC) as the most egregious offenders. The NCDC is the world's largest repository of weather data, responsible for maintaining global historical climate information. But researchers, led by meteorology expert Anthony Watts, grew so frustrated with what they describe as the organization's failure to quality-control the data, that they created Surfacestations.org to provide an up-to-date, standardized database for the continental U.S.

 

On a more philosophical note, it's intriguing to me that politics is teaching science a lesson. Usually it's the other way around.

[bascule]

Often, when independents obtain raw temperature data or computer codes, they do uncover flaws, thus advancing climate science—the "sunlight" now shining on CRU's data and codes is doing just that.

 

How often has this actually happened? Twice?

[Dudde]

How often has this actually happened? Twice?

 

Twice is still pretty significant when it comes to advancing our understanding of something.

 

I agree that the previously mentioned groups should be a bit more open with their data - not to the public per se, but it would be easier to fight the conspiracy theorists if there were a little more information in circulation.

[bascule]

I don't think twice counts as "often"... I'm just saying the WSJ is overembellishing

[ydoaPs]

c-nkdMEHNlE

[swansont]

Twice is still pretty significant when it comes to advancing our understanding of something.

 

Twice, as opposed to countless times it happens among the scientists themselves?

 

 

I agree that the previously mentioned groups should be a bit more open with their data - not to the public per se, but it would be easier to fight the conspiracy theorists if there were a little more information in circulation.

 

I doubt that would help. I have serious doubts that the people asking for the data are doing so to advance science. Only their own agenda. And conspiracy theorists aren't interested in facts, and are often immune to their effects.

[Dudde]

I doubt that would help. I have serious doubts that the people asking for the data are doing so to advance science. Only their own agenda. And conspiracy theorists aren't interested in facts, and are often immune to their effects.

 

That's an exellent point. And besides, even if third parties were to get hold of raw data, they'd do the same thing they do 99% of the time - misinterpret and go to the press!

[padren]

That's an exellent point. And besides, even if third parties were to get hold of raw data, they'd do the same thing they do 99% of the time - misinterpret and go to the press!

 

And what's really twisted in this little "perfect storm" of how anything resembling progress (in any direction) grinds to a halt - when they go to the press, the response from the press (assuming there's a celebrity* to hitch it to) is entirely proportional to the sensationalism of the claim, not the veracity of the claim.

 

*Politicians with appear to be celebrities these days

[bascule]

I wonder how all those Denialista’s will cope if 2010 is warmer than 1998? Are they going to jump up and down and yell, “Look, bright shiny thing over there…” for about 5 years, and then start a similar myth… “But it’s been cooling since 2010…”

 

Yes, the concept of a trend escapes them. "Why isn't it simultaneously getting hotter everywhere on earth all the time?" The earth has seasons? The earth and sun have oscillations? What?

[padren]

Yes, the concept of a trend escapes them. "Why isn't it simultaneously getting hotter everywhere on earth all the time?" The earth has seasons? The earth and sun have oscillations? What?

 

On that note: I think it's a great oversight or sadly, a great overestimation of the public to actually have this summit in the bloody winter of all times. If it was held in Arizona in the summer, sweaty newscasters would be dramatically talking about how "..and here it's safe to say the rising heat is on everybody's mind, back you to Jim."

 

... and people would be sitting at home saying "...that poor reporter girl sure looks uncomfortable in that sun... I hope they do fix that weather thing soon... poor dear."

[Pangloss]

I don't mean to change the subject, but I can't help but wonder what would have been the reaction of the scientific community had the shoe been on the other foot. Would we be assuming that all the other sources remain valid until proven invalid, or would we be screaming for the full light of public scrutiny to be shined on all sources?

 

In fact I'm pretty sure we had that happen with EPA/NASA/NOAA whistle-bowers during the Bush administration. Something about the White House forcing changes to reports to make them less scary, if memory serves.

[Pangloss]

So we don't need the data because the denialists don't have any of their own? That's not science, that's two wrongs making a right. Just because absolute denialists have no science doesn't mean that pro-GW advocates get to use a lower standard. That they should reveal their data is a no-brainer. What the denialists think is irrelevant.

 

Also there's a conflation of skeptical motivations contained in that declaration that I think is dangerous and detrimental. I don't think beating global warming will involve conflating honest skeptics with die-hard denialists.

 

I will admit that it's not particularly fair -- we're essentially asking pro-GW advocates to hold themselves to a higher standard than what might normally be accepted without non-scientific controversies. But I don't see that as a bad thing, I see it as a GOOD thing. I think it's perfectly valid and reasonable for emotional and unscientific drama and skepticism to force science to raise its standards. Why not? Beating objections based on human drama is just as important as figuring out the solution to any other variable. And we SHOULDN'T advocate major upheavals to our entire way of life without the absolute highest possible degree of scientific rigor.

[D H]

Poison the well? It's already dead and poisoned before iNow got here OK? So basically you'd rather tarnish the reputation of hundreds of climatologists than believe the VERY WELL DOCUMENTED funding of climate Denialists by big oil and king coal?

Oh please. Stop with the melodrama, and stop with the association fallacy. You are using that fallacy three times here in one short sentence.

1. You are lumping the legitimate skeptics with those who deny there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, etc.
   
2. You are tarnishing their legitimate arguments with a false association with big scary oil. Many of these skeptics have no association with big oil, nor are they creationists. And even if they were, those associations would not detract from their arguments.
   
3. You intentionally labeled these people with an extremely offensive word to dismiss their arguments.

[Dudde]

So we don't need the data because the denialists don't have any of their own?

 

That's not how I interpreted his post. He merely stated that the noGW side doesn't have any data for us to inspect, thus we cannot demand they present their research - there's nothing to look at but hunches and claims. I agree, except for some big doctorate or scientist names, I haven't seen one person against global warming offer 2 minutes of their time to explain why it isn't true, they rehash the same lies I can hear from daytime talk shows and move on - of course interrupting anything I have to say in the process

 

You are lumping the legitimate skeptics with those who deny there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, etc.

 

Even though your comment wasn't directed at me, I'm one of the people who group "denialists" into a single group so I thought I'd answer anyway. If the global warming skeptics who find themselves doing legitimate research and using facts to cite examples and prove their own theories, they're grouped into the 'skeptics' category, which is still okay.

 

if you're spewing what you hear on t.v. and don't bother to check any facts, while continuing to claim you're being lied to, you deserve to be grouped into a denialist category

[D H]

And as this is the climategate thread, and not a thread dedicated to a specific scientific question that might generate a more legitimate conversation, I am entitled to 'lump them all in' to the Denialist camp

No, you aren't. We have distinct rules in the forum against use of fallacies and against using slurs or prejudice against any group of people.

[bascule]

You are lumping the legitimate skeptics with those who deny there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, etc.

 

For what it's worth, the real "skeptics" are outnumbered by climate science deniers by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

 

Many of these people deny anthropologically forced climate change in general.

[D H]

So I'm not allowed to call Fox news presenters Denialists if they actually add words to the Climategate emails to distort their meaning, ...

I never referred to Fox news. I don't give a crap what they say there. There are plenty of legitimate skeptics out there who have no association with Fox news.

 

And no, you are not allowed to use slurs against them. We have rules against that. That particular word has taken on a foul meaning. They could spout the most meaningless junk imaginable and you should still refrain from calling them by intentionally foul names. All you accomplish in calling names is to make yourself look just as low-brow as the people you are derogating.