Climategate (GW email leak)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Already did. It does not provide the original data, and it does not go into significant detail on the normalization, besides that it was done.

[iNow]

Here Cap'n. You may need to find access to the original publication, though:

 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=114#p200108c09960114001

 

 

Osborn, T.J., and K.R. Briffa. 2006. The spatial extent of 20th-century: warmth in the context of the past 1200 years. Science 311:841-844.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Digging back three references or so through the citation chain, I still cannot find the original data, or a detailed explanation of the statistics. But I suppose I should not judge the statistics, as my statistical knowledge is particularly weak.

[D H]

This is a major point!

Mercury poisoning, topsoil loss, environments poisoned and degraded, our beautiful Hunter Valley outside Sydney thoroughbred stud farms going bankrupt due to coal expansion, people in the beautiful Hunter Valley winery area having 3 times the lung cancer rates of us living in the Big Smoke of Sydney!... the list goes on and on.

That is exactly what I meant in post #50, emphasis mine

I do not think that AGW is the most pressing environmental problem facing humanity. We have changed the face of the planet, often times for the worse.

Look at it this way. We have a limited amounted of resources we can spend on fixing various problems. We have caused problems, some big, some not so big. The cost of remediation is not necessarily related to the magnitude of the problem. We have collectively picked most of the low hanging fruit since the start of the modern environmental movement nearly 50 years old. What's left isn't so easily solved. We need to be smart about where we apply our limited resources.

 

I do not see global warming as being anywhere close to the biggest man-made environmental problem. Yet the proposed solution, an unattainable 80% reduction in our CO₂ output in would put all other environmental mitigations at risk. We don't have an infinite amount of resources. We can't have it all; we have to pick and choose.

[CharonY]

Already did. It does not provide the original data, and it does not go into significant detail on the normalization, besides that it was done.

 

I am not sure to which you are refering to, but e.g. the Mann paper from 1998 in Nature gives info regarding the calibration, as well as where they got their data. Usually the data or in case of extremely large sets (as here) the references for the data are given in the supplementary materials.

[bascule]

I do not see global warming as being anywhere close to the biggest man-made environmental problem.

 

What do you think is the biggest man-made environmental problem?

 

Yet the proposed solution, an unattainable 80% reduction in our CO₂ output in would put all other environmental mitigations at risk. We don't have an infinite amount of resources. We can't have it all; we have to pick and choose.

 

What do you think about water vulnerability as it relates to climate change?

[D H]

What do you think is the biggest man-made environmental problem?

Quick response (don't have time for a long one):

 

Joni Mitchell said it best: "They paved paradise and up a parking lot". We have changed the face of the planet. These land use changes have had a big impact on the climate, biodiversity/habitat loss, increased flooding, ...

[bascule]

Joni Mitchell said it best: "They paved paradise and up a parking lot". We have changed the face of the planet. These land use changes have had a big impact on the climate, biodiversity/habitat loss, increased flooding, ...

 

Yes, however the adverse effects of land use manifest themselves in the form of climate change. They provide yet another anthropogenic radiative forcing (i.e. changes to surface albedo)

[Mr Skeptic]

You just cited wattsupwiththat?

 

I didn't cite them, they just were the first results with graphs more or less of the sort that I was looking for -- hence, as part of a request rather than as support for a conclusion. Unfortunately, I have yet to see graphs which compare individual proxies against each other. This is probably because the only purpose of that would be to assess the reliability of the proxies, and in the real world one would want to use multi-proxies that throw out or adjust for the portions of individual proxies that would be unreliable. But presumably, someone would have done this as it would seem to be rather important.

 

I know the link you shared (and the images) does contain individual proxies but they are 1) not raw data and 2) never for the same continent, so that their correlation can't really be seen.

 

Like I said, though... Much of what you're after, Mr.Skeptic, is presented clearly and robustly in chapters 9 and 11 at this link (and the Overview does a fine job of discussing calibration and validation for the reader):

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc

 

Well, it does not seem to answer the question that I asked, though it does address some of my concerns. However, it does also raise some concerns, for example:

 

From your link: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions demonstrate very limited statistical skill (e.g., using the CE statistic) for proxy sets before the 19th century (Rutherford et al. 2005, Wahl and Ammann in press). Published information, although limited, also suggests that these statistics are sensitive to the inclusion of small subsets of the data.

 

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

 

 

This one is part of the caption for one of the images you shared.

Upper panel: Fourteen temperature-related proxy records selected on the basis of their correlation with the instrumental record, as described by Osborn and Briffa (2006), filtered to remove variations on timescales less than 20 years and then normalized to have zero mean and unit standard deviation during the period A.D. 800–1995.

Leaving aside the stuff they did to the data, another concern is this selection of proxies based on correlation with instrumental record. While this seems reasonable, when combined with the other quotes (the "statistical skill" of proxies before the 19th century is "very limited") and knowledge of the time period during which instrumental record is available, it makes me wonder.

 

 

 

Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community.

 

This I most definitely agree with. From what I understand anyone who fails in this is not doing science, so I'm not sure why they need to be told this.

 

----

 

Also, I just today read a NewScientist report that stalactite growth has been misunderstood:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427385.200-cave-breathing-regulates-growth-of-stalactites.html

...a finding which pours doubt on ancient climate records derived from these structures.

 

----

 

Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that unless I can understand why something is true I will doubt it. Even if I provisionally accept it on the word of others, until I can understand it I will never be completely convinced. Yes, I understand this is difficult for complicated topics, but that's just how I am.

[iNow]

Anyhow...

I appreciate the thought and tone of your post. However, tell me how that is all relevant now to the emails which were hacked, and the fact that scientists chose to use a MORE accurate method instead of a LESS accurate method of showing temperature data after the 1960s... especially since they knew about and openly conceded the flaws in proxies?

 

I just don't get all of the hub-bub, I suppose. We know proxies are limited. So what? That doesn't mean the information they provide us is somehow useless or without merit.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hi MrSkeptic,

Good questions re: proxies, but isn't this what you're looking for? Didn't Mann include multiple proxies all compared against each other to develop the hockey stick?

 

 

Read more about the other proxies that went into this graph...

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html

Damnit! That's the one I was looking for when I made the post above. Thanks for putting that forth, POM.

Edited December 14, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Thanks, Peak Oil Man. That's what I was looking for. Those graphs do seem to be telling the same story, enough so to be seen by visual comparison, even if they don't match up exactly.

 

I appreciate the thought and tone of your post. However, tell me how that is all relevant now to the emails which were hacked, and the fact that scientists chose to use a MORE accurate method instead of a LESS accurate method of showing temperature data after the 1960s...

 

Well, for the most part we haven't been talking about the emails, and I don't personally consider them to reveal anything more than might have been expected. Though it does relate to the use of proxies mentioned in the emails, and that their accuracy is imperfect. For me though, the one about keeping opponents out of journals even if it meant redefining peer review was the most eyebrow-raising of them, though I doubt that too many share his sentiment.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I agree that this is a huge problem, and is one reason I'm so into New Urbanism and ecocities as one of the solutions. But you haven't replied to my post. Why can't we solve more than one crisis at a time? Won't solving global warming (about which you've disproved nothing) also solve other crisis if we go about it in the right way?

 

And what political agenda does global warming serve in your Denialist faith?

 

Fortunately for the planet, most strawmen will wither due to global warming.

 

Really. Is anyone with the slightest doubts immediately a "denialist"?

[iNow]

Is anyone with the slightest doubts immediately a "denialist"?

 

If those doubts have been addressed using evidence from numerous sources and demonstrated to be unwarranted, and yet the individual despite that evidence maintains those doubts and sticks by their preconceptions, then as a general rule the answer is, yes... they are immediately a denialist.

 

Asking questions is fine, but when those questions have been heartily addressed and you still refuse to adjust your views, you are really no better than a creationist denying evolution.

[iNow]

I just want to be perfectly clear here for everyone... Out of everyone with whom I've ever interacted on forums who is not willing to accept humans as the primary driver of current climate change, I respect DH the most.

 

I have read DH's posts here, and I have personally interacted with him numerous times. While he and I often disagree on political and social matters, he has never once given me reason to question his integrity or his intelligence and abilities. In fact, he is IMO one of the most solid contributors we have here at SFN.

 

He accepts that human contributions of CO2 impact the climate, and has been clear that he just doesn't think the impact is as strong as climatologists suggest. He also has issues with how this issue has played out politically, and how people are often making poor arguments in support.

 

I get that, and I can completely appreciate where he is coming from. Also, as I mentioned, DH is an incredibly bright fellow who has EARNED my respect. For that reason, I am not willing to dismiss his concerns as I would any old denialist.

 

However, I do struggle with the fact that the argument put forth by DH is really little more than, "It just doesn't seem right in my gut." DH is essentially saying that he is willing to dismiss the conclusions of the thousands of scientists who study this for a living because it just not "smell right" to him. The actual criticisms he's put forth have all been addressed with evidence and data which explained why those criticisms were invalid (for example, the speed with which things warmed in the early 20th century versus later in the 20th century).

 

That's where I have a bit of a problem with the approach here. As I said, I like DH a lot, and know that he is MORE THAN capable of supporting his arguments. I just don't think the particular argument he's been putting forth in this arena is capable of being supported. We've been studying this for more than 4 decades, and the conclusion is clear. The conclusion is supported by evidence across research modalities. The evidence shows a confluence, and all points to humans as the primary driver of the current warming trend.

 

If DH is unwilling to accept that, then he has his reasons... However, I'm not going to label him a denialist like I would any other idiot since DH is most certainly NOT an idiot, and he has earned enough respect from me to not be dismissed out of hand or with derision.

 

He is perhaps one of the few people on this planet with whom I'm willing to "agree to disagree" on this issue (the rest are IMO just tainted from all of the misinformation or little more than idiot denialists). However, my agreeing to disagree with DH is an exception and it doesn't change the fact that his viewpoint on this issue is simply not supported by the facts available to us.

[toastywombel]

I agree with everything iNow said, DH is a formidable opponent in a debate.

 

Although I don't agree with his views on the global warming, I will admit that his opinion on the matter is logical and not ideological.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But iNow, evolution is a conspiracy of the guv-ern-ment. ;-)

 

Cap'n, I'm not calling everyone a denialist, just those who perpetuate the conspiracy theory that every climatologist on planet earth is a lying liberal bastard out to defraud the public to install a (rant it with me in your best foaming-at-the-mouth scream) a WORLD COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT!

 

Oh the humanity!!! indeed!

 

DH has been pushing this line since I started in this thread back at post 61, and has not explained which particular version of the conspiracy! (Da da da DOM!) he believes in.

 

Maybe you should read the Wombel Method. Specifically Rule 2 under Method 2: Personal Attacks.

Edited December 15, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[D H]

I guess I was a little sore at his language about a "global warming religion" when he's sprouting conspiracy theories and quite touchy on the term Denialist, yet happy to lash out with religious accusations of his own.

Where? In response to various people asking what I "believed," I did note that "beliefs" are the domain of religion, not science. I have not called global warming a religion. I have in fact admitted multiple times that our CO₂ output almost certainly affects the climate.

 

And this is where my interest in the conversation comes from... where do people who are NOT really climatologists suddenly get the gall to call every climatologist on the planet a liar involved in a huge conspiracy?

First off, there are plenty of natural scientists, including climatologists, who disagree with various aspects of the IPCC reports. Some are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Secondly, a conspiracy is not needed. Amongst the scientists, all that is needed is groupthink and confirmation bias.

 

As far as politicians go, politicians of all ilk pounce on scientific statements that happen to comport with their goals. The solution to global warming is a vastly increased involvement of the government in the economy, industry, technology, and the very way we live. Needless to say, this is not in line with a libertarian or conservative point of view. It is in line with a left of center point of view. Note very well: Nothing here about a silly global communist conspiracy. That is laughable.

 

These kinds of convenient marriages between politics and science happen all too often. Look at how monetarism framed the US government's economical thinking for the last 30 years. Groupthink and confirmation bias were almost certainly at part to blame for the 2007 economic collapse. (Regulations?!? We don't need no stinkin' regulations!)

[swansont]

Where? In response to various people asking what I "believed," I did note that "beliefs" are the domain of religion, not science.

 

But that's only one definition of believe; there are several.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

[Mr Skeptic]

Usually when you know something to be true you also believe it to be true.

[bascule]

Where? In response to various people asking what I "believed," I did note that "beliefs" are the domain of religion, not science. I have not called global warming a religion. I have in fact admitted multiple times that our CO₂ output almost certainly affects the climate.

 

Perhaps let me restate my question then: do you recognize the IPCC's position that anthropogenic CO₂ is the foremost radiative forcing affecting the climate system as a scientifically valid one?

[CharonY]

Just as a sidenote, I just now found the following paper:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008320

They describe a tool with which one can play around to see temperature changes and models.

 

Here is the tool: http://climatewizard.org/

[swansont]

First off, there are plenty of natural scientists, including climatologists, who disagree with various aspects of the IPCC reports. Some are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Secondly, a conspiracy is not needed. Amongst the scientists, all that is needed is groupthink and confirmation bias.

 

But groupthink and confirmation bias are accusations that need to be supported. Just stating the terms is a political ploy. There are physicists who doubt relativity is true. Is acceptance of that theory — the consensus view — an example of groupthink and confirmation bias?

[D H]

But groupthink and confirmation bias are accusations that need to be supported.

Solid proof of confirmation bias will have to wait until the various climate centers release their data, including raw data and methodologies. Until then, there is plenty of proof of cherry-picking. Briffa's tree ring data are just one such example. Others:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/stern’s-cherry-picking-on-disasters-and-climate-change-3981

 

Mann's hurricane study, which starts with "Atlantic tropical cyclone activity, as measured by annual storm counts, reached anomalous levels over the past decade". This ignores research by Christopher W. Landsea (National Hurricane Center, not ExxonMobil) et al, that shows that tropical cyclone activity is not anomalously high. In fact, the recent (since 1900) hurricane frequency and the long-term record inferred by Mann are statistically indistinguishable in the sense that there is no way to reject the null hypothesis at any reasonable level of confidence.

 

 

Groupthink? Easy. Those emails. Here is but one:

 

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt

 

They are saving the world. What could be a better motivation?

 

NVGGgncVq-4

 

 

 

That climate science being used as a political tool?

 

DWEzLoUgXw0

 

 

Finally, iNow talked about going Cheney on the climate. The penultimate paragraph from that article:

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

I realize Friedman is playing devil's advocate here. However, it shows his hand. So does this devil's advocate statement by Tim Wirth (United Nations Foundation president, former senator from Colorado):

We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

 

 

There are plenty of reasons to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. (As an aside, coal is for the most part a native product.). Would going Cheney on the climate truly accomplish that end, or would it just trade one foreign demon for another? Most of the reserves for the rare earths, precious metals, and lithium needed for solar cells, wind turbines, and batteries are in foreign countries, and countries that are not necessarily our friends.

[Mr Skeptic]

Finally, iNow talked about going Cheney on the climate. The penultimate paragraph from that article:

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

I realize Friedman is playing devil's advocate here. However, it shows his hand. So does this devil's advocate statement by Tim Wirth (United Nations Foundation president, former senator from Colorado):

We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

 

I don't see what the fault is with that. Deciding whether to take action against global warming requires a risk/cost/benefit analysis. Showing that the benefits side of that equation is high (entails stuff we want to do anyways) is a perfectly reasonable way to argue for it.

 

There are plenty of reasons to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. (As an aside, coal is for the most part a native product.). Would going Cheney on the climate truly accomplish that end, or would it just trade one foreign demon for another? Most of the reserves for the rare earths, precious metals, and lithium needed for solar cells, wind turbines, and batteries are in foreign countries, and countries that are not necessarily our friends.

 

A difference however, is that when we run out of fuel, the cars don't go. When we run out of construction materials the cars still go, but you can't make more. Thus fuel is more dangerous to have as an import. In any case, some of these can be extracted from seawater, and we need less of them overall.

[bascule]

NVGGgncVq-4

 

 

 

That climate science being used as a political tool?

 

DWEzLoUgXw0

 

 

This is all a nice ad hominem against proponents of climate science, but you never answered my question:

 

Do you recognize the IPCC's position that anthropogenic CO₂ is the foremost radiative forcing affecting the climate system as a scientifically valid one?

[D H]

I wasn't replying to you, bascule.