2010 Likely to be the Warmest Year on Record

[JohnB]

I thought we were talking about the graph posted earlier in this thread, the one with the truncated results. Can you show me where the results have been corrected and restored?

 

SMF, if you found my reply demeaning I apologise, it wasn't meant that way. I did use the word "appear" and gave reasons for why it appeared that way to me in my response.

 

As to Trenberth. He might be "highly respected" by some but that is no reason for me to give respect. People earn my respect and Kevin Trenberth has failed to do so.

 

I find his using the floods devastating my nation to push his barrow distasteful to say the least. We have major problems with attribution in Climate Science but he can make attribution statements within a week of the event? Should I point out that freak events should not be used as indicators for long term trends? For years some of the more stupid sceptics have pointed to individual events as proof that AGW was "wrong" and they were soundly (and rightly) told that "weather is not climate". Now Dr. Trenberth is doing the same thing and that's all right?

 

News article is here.

"The rapid onset of La Nina meant the Asian monsoon was enhanced and the over 1 degree Celsius anomalies in sea surface temperatures led to the flooding in India and China in July and Pakistan in August," he told Reuters in an email.

 

He said a portion, about 0.5C, of the ocean temperatures around northern Australia, which are more than 1.5C above pre-1970 levels, could be attributed to global warming.

 

Note the view of an Australian Climatologist in the same article.

"It's a natural phenomena. We have no strong reason at the moment for saying this La Nina is any stronger than it would be even without humans," said Neville Nicholls of Monash University in Melbourne and president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

 

But he said global atmospheric warming of about 0.75C over the past half century had to be having some impact.

 

"It has to be affecting the climate, regionally and globally. It has to be affecting things like La Nina. But can you find a credible argument which says it's made it worse? I can't at the moment."

 

To quote one of the UEA emails;

I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to

undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don't think you can

ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try

to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the

huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed

technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything

was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their

motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with

nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.

 

Emphasis Mine. A sterling example of how to respond to critics. Don't argue the facts, just cast aspertions on their character. A methodology truly worthy of respect, would you say?

 

How about the preferred treatment of "deniers" in his upcoming AMS speech?

 

Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.

 

The full pdf is here.

 

Sorry SMF, but he talks like a political hack and not a scientist. Cast aspertions on your opponents and avoid scientific debate, yes those are the words of someone truly wedded to the principles of modern science.

 

My respect for those in the "Team" is zero. As I've been trying to explain to Swansont, they have happily done things that are considered crimes in other industries without a second thought. The infamous email from Dr. Jones to delete emails is another case. Not only is it a crime to ask people to delete or destroy documents that are subject to FOI requests, something even the lowest middle manager knows and understands, there were no objections from his colleagues. Nobody said "Hey, you shouldn't be asking people to do that." So prima facie, the "Team" are quite willing to abet, if not aid, illegal activities.

 

I cannot imagine any of the practicing scientists I've met here making such a request, or recieving such a request without vigorously protesting it. The people here have integrity. I got my indoctrination about scientific principles here at this forum. Where the principles of Karl Popper and Richard Feynman are followed. If you haven't read it, please read Cargo Cult Science by Dr. Feynman. The behaviour of some in the climate science community wouldn't pass muster even under the looser rules in our "Speculations" forum.

 

Finally, you can reassert all you like. The fact is that paleoclimate reconstructions are vital for the correct attribution of forcings and the calibration of our climate models. And is there something unusual about the "blade" that gives cause for concern?

Edited January 18, 2011 by JohnB

[SMF]

JohnB:

 

You continue to cast aspersions at Dr. Trenberth without providing any credible evidence of what he actually said regarding recent Australian weather. Can't you come up with any source to support your complaints so that the readers here can see what he said in context? I am not interested in with what you think he said, I want to know what he actually said. Why are you so reluctant to provide this information? What I have seen are nicely reasoned statements regarding how the, relatively small, addition of global warming to weather has probably affected some recent events. All very reasonable, as I would expect from a successful scientist. Be careful, all of his public statements are on the record.

 

A simple addition that makes me wonder about your objectivity. A private e-mail is not casting aspersions at somebody, it is a private conversation that, in this case, was illegally stolen and illegally exposed to the general public. Are your private conversations about individuals, such as Dr. Trenberth, casting aspersions or are they just your personal and private opinions. Further, if you were to actually read the UK freedom of information act (I have) you would easily be able to see that the data requests, made public in the UEA hack, were not legal. This has been supported in several investigations, but the outcome was obvious if one knows the law.

 

SM

[FX]

Are you talking about http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2.pdf ? (pdf file)

 

In html format here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/trenberths-upcoming-ams-meeting-talk-climategate-thoughts/

 

(with additional commentary of course)

 

Is that the source?

Edited January 18, 2011 by FX

[swansont]

I thought we were talking about the graph posted earlier in this thread, the one with the truncated results. Can you show me where the results have been corrected and restored?

 

 

That may be some of the confusion, because we were talking about truncation and the divergence problem in the twentysomething posts, and I thought this was merely a continuation of that.

[JohnB]

Swansont, perhaps there was confusion. Early on I made this point;

Suppose those lines were the profitability of various depts in a company. Generally the trend is up but some depts are down. Can I cut them because it "doesn't matter" for the general picture of company profitability? Can I cut them because I know the data is "wrong" and given time I can come up with a really good reason why they are diverging? The answer to both is "No". I have to show the lot, warts and all.

 

I was referring to the truncation of published papers that were being combined into the spaghetti graph. I was likening each paper to the financial reports for various departments within a company and the final graph to a composite of the finances of the company in general. In such a comparison, the entire financial report must be shown and none truncated.

 

My apologies if this was not clear.

 

SMF,

You continue to cast aspersions at Dr. Trenberth without providing any credible evidence of what he actually said regarding recent Australian weather. Can't you come up with any source to support your complaints so that the readers here can see what he said in context? I am not interested in with what you think he said, I want to know what he actually said. Why are you so reluctant to provide this information?

 

I quoted Dr. Trenberth from his comments to the reporter and provided a link to the original article. Perhaps you missed it? (The underlined words in my post are called "links") Attributing 1/3 of the El Nino warmth within days of the weather event is amazingly quick off the mark wouldn't you say? Especially since others have yet to make such an attribution. Of course he may well be an American genius that is far smarter than our homegrown Australian scientists who obviously aren't bright enough to see the connections that he can, but I doubt it. If I sound p*ssed, I am. I have an extreme dislike for people who push an ideological cart by capitalising on the misfortunes of others. While I've mentioned Dr. Trenberth in this instance, he is not the only one and certain Australian politicians will get their comeuppance as well for doing exactly the same thing. If they had waited a month or so, I wouldn't mind so much, but to pull this sort of stunt while the situation is ongoing is disgusting. Dr Trenberth gets the mention because this is SFN, not Australian Politics dot Net.

 

A simple addition that makes me wonder about your objectivity. A private e-mail is not casting aspersions at somebody, it is a private conversation that, in this case, was illegally stolen and illegally exposed to the general public. Are your private conversations about individuals, such as Dr. Trenberth, casting aspersions or are they just your personal and private opinions.

 

I do wonder about your reading comprehension. The email I quoted (and gave a link to so the full thing could be read) was Dr Trenberth recommending the tactic of "casting aspertions" on his opponents. I dislike and distrust people who recommend such tactics to their peers. You might think ad homs have a place in scientific debate, but I do not. Further, if ad homs are to be the recommended tactic, then that speaks towards a severe lack of actual evidence to back up your case, does it not?

 

Further, if you were to actually read the UK freedom of information act (I have) you would easily be able to see that the data requests, made public in the UEA hack, were not legal. This has been supported in several investigations, but the outcome was obvious if one knows the law.

 

Nice switch, very clean. Since you have read the UK FOI, would you enlighten me as to the legality of, and penalties applicable to, destroying or requesting the destruction of documents known to be subject to an FOI request? (Which was what I was talking about.) Could you also perhaps provide proof that the requests were in fact illegal and where in the reports of the various investigations they were found to be so? So far, you are long on rhetoric but rather short on substantiation. You've made the claim the requests were "not legal", can you prove that claim?

 

FX, the ams pdf was the one I linked to. There are various "discussions" about his desire to reverse the null hypothesis knocking around the blogosphere.

Edited January 19, 2011 by JohnB

[SMF]

JohnB:

 

These comments come with apologies to the management because this response has only a marginal relationship to the original post, as are the ones I am responding to. I am really concerned about how attacks on individual scientists are being substituted for well documented scientific discussion.

 

John, I just don’t see where all your anger is coming from. The problem is that the Reuters article just doesn’t support your contentions. You cite a scientist that contradicted what Dr. Trenberth said, but it was a pretty mild statement, and you didn’t note the quotes from Australian scientists that supported his viewpoint in the same article. Here is the version in the Daily Sun:

 

http://www.daily-sun.com/?view=details&type=daily_sun_news&pub_no=97&cat_id=1&menu_id=12&news_type_id=1&news_id=19771&archiev=yes&arch_date=14-01-2011

 

Keep in mind that these are not statements in a peer reviewed journal, but interviews of experts regarding their opinions about underlying mechanisms of weather. What Dr. Trenberth has said is pretty conservative and obvious. What it amounts to is that it is known that the oceans are warmer, and that weather patterns are known to be affected by warming, so it is likely that any weather event will have a warming component. This is further elaborated in the AMS piece. Some people wish to be more cautious. Big deal.

 

Similarly, I and many thousands of other scientists agree with Trenberth’s AMS piece on science communication that you linked. He pretty much explains what is happening to climate science as the result of concerted disinformation efforts by antiscientific blogs and others who are not actually practicing scientists. The illegal hack of the computers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that he talks about are excellent examples.

 

Here is a little background on the FOI incident. The requests were publicly organized on an anti-science blog. They sent 50 requests over a two day period asking for raw data used in some CRU climate reconstructions that came from meteorological stations in a variety of different countries. These requests were not legally enforceable because the CRU didn’t own the data sets, and they were already available directly from the individual meteorological stations. Here is link to the UK FOI act:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents

 

Look at Part II, 21. Information accessible to applicant by other means.

 

Further the requests were clearly intended to harass the CRU, not to do any science. Only one request was needed, when denied they didn’t appeal, and they didn’t subsequently go to the data sources and get the information. The CRU is a small department and employs only three scientists, and they are required to spend a certain amount of time on each request (I think it is around 12 hours) before making a decision. The scientists clearly, and I think correctly, thought that they were under siege and said things in their private e-mails that are much milder than I would have said about the vandals under these circumstances. This attack was highly disruptive and essentially stopped all research activities for weeks. This type of FOI request is not legally enforceable. See FOI Part I, 14. Vexatious or repeated requests.

 

Regarding the request to destroy documents-- This statement was not made by Dr. Trenberth. He has said that the comment was not appropriate. The comment was lifted out of context from stolen private documents so we don’t know how the conversation actually went. Most important, no documents were actually destroyed. Angry private comments are not illegal, deleting information under request is. See FOI Part VIII, 77. Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure. Not only are such comments not illegal, they are not even very interesting because they are private. If you think they are important, see how many people you know who would be willing to publish all of their private e-mails that discuss a contentious issue. Don't you think it is OK to discuss what you really think with your friends? Have you never heard somebody say something like "I am gonna kill that SOB." Was this illegal or even of interest? There has been no legal action against any of the scientists. There is more information regarding this stupid incident, and the outcomes of the resulting investigations, in the Hasselmann (2010) Nature article referenced in the Trenberth PDF (Communicating Climate Science…) that you linked.

 

Regarding your discussion with Swansont regarding the troublesome tree ring series, I think you are making way too much out of it. This one tree ring series had a divergence problem. This was never hidden, it was reported in detail in the original research article about this series and many times since, and the problem, in turn, has generated a whole new research area. It is interesting that the Spiegel On Line you referenced earlier has an article on recent research of a pine tree series that begins to fill in the divergence.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,661726,00.html

 

But, if you don’t like this series, there are plenty of other tree series that document the hockey stick. But if you don’t like trees, there are plenty of other proxies that document the hockey stick. If you have some peer reviewed scientific information that makes a big difference, please cite a peer reviewed research article that claims to do this.

 

Why not leave out personalities and just stick to the scientific research; this is what is important and completely avoiding the anti-science blogosphere when looking for accurate information would be a good start. SM

 

 

[JohnB]

SMF, maybe it is a difference in outlook between nations. As I said, if the comments had come in a month or so I wouldn't have minded so much. I simply think that all persons should shut up while the situation is ongoing and save the profound prognostications for later. We still have a number of people missing and many thousands in danger, if you can't see that commenting at this state is to say the least insensitive, then I doubt I can explain it further. I alluded to, but didn't say directly that my contempt and disgust at some of our politicians is far greater than any animosity I might feel for Dr Trenberth in this matter.

 

I do have to wonder what propaganda handbook you get your vocabulary from, although it certainly appears that you are in full agreement that the best way to have a conversation is to cast aspertions on your opponents. "Anti science", "misinformation"? Concerning the FOI I am well aware of the damn stupid stunt that was pulled with the 50 odd requests. I am also well aware that the emails complaining about FOI date to before that occurred. In this respect it is you who is spreading misinformation.

 

Unfortunately for the misinformation, people do actually look at the timeline. While I certainly agree that the concerted effort from CA was both stupid and vexatious, there is zero evidence that the CRU was under undue pressure before that time. You also assert that the information couldn't be given out because "CRU didn't own the datasets", as this was the (I think) third different excuse for not releasing the data, perhaps you can see that it needs to be taken with much salt. IIRC the order was "We don't have the data", "I.P. rights" and finally the "Confidentiality agreements" that were apparently so confidential that even the CRU didn't know who they were with.

 

I can only repeat what others have said in this "If you aren't guily of behaving badly, then stop acting as if you are."

 

I presume that you can provide some sort of substantiary evidence for the claim that;

Similarly, I and many thousands of other scientists agree with Trenberth’s AMS piece on science communication that you linked.

 

As it hasn't been out long, that was a very quick poll you took.

 

Concerning the deletion of emails, I never said it was Dr Trenberth, I stated quite plainly that it was Dr Jones. Nice try with the "context" bit, but it doesn't change the facts. Phil Jones recienved an FOI request for certain documents. Within days of that request being filed Dr Jones emailed colleagues requesting them to delete the emails that were the subject of the request. This is not an off the cuff "I'm gonna kill the SOB", this is a request for others to commit a crime. Whether documents were delted or not is immaterial, it is the act of making the request that is illegal. Similarly (but obviously a more extreme case) if I were to circulate emails asking for a hitman to kill my wife, that act is illegal. Whether I find a hitman or not is immaterial to the case.

 

Similarly to spread the disinformation that "There has been no legal action against any of the scientists" is disingenuous to say the least. Those that were following the investigations are well aware that the only reason no charges were laid was due to expiration of a Statute of Limitiations. Context doesn't enter the equation, Dr Jones knowingly asked others to commit what he knew to be a crime. For some unfathomable reason this appears to be nothing much to many in the scientific community. I can assure you that it is a very big deal in the outside world.

 

Concerning the three "investigations". If I were you I wouldn't be talking about them too much or people might actually go and have a look at them and that would be unfortunate for your narrative. They might see for example that even though there was prima facie evidence of deletion of documents subject to FOI requests not one of the investigations actually asked the question "Did you delete any documents?" which would surely be a rather obvious question. People might also see that no records of interviews were kept, in fact amazingly little documentation at all for supposedly "rigorous" investigations. People might also see that many of those involved in the whole FOI debacle were not interviewed.

 

Would you consider a police investigation to be in any way complete if they only interviewed friends of the accused? Of course not.

 

Regarding the tree rings. This is not about a series. This is about truncating the results of a published reconstruction. In the spaghetti graph used earlier in this thread Briffa 2001 is cut off in 1960. Again this isn't about a particular series. This is about using the part of a colleagues results that you agree with and dropping the part of his results that you don't agree with. The divergance problem is a very real issue and I frankly have no doubt that the dendro people will solve it. Howver, until that time it should still be shown.

 

I use Richard Feynmann as reference on this;

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be

given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know

anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you

make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then

you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well

as those that agree with it.

 

In a number of respects, this isn't about the science per se, but about the philosophy behind how the science is done. There is an old saying that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. From my POV, science must not only be done right, but be seen to be done right. If what you have is solid, then no amount of garbage in the blogoshere will change that. It is the hiding, the refusals and the obstructions that make people suspicious. Science, especially publicly funded science should be open and above board.

 

I really don't care what shape the shaft of the hockey stick finishes up looking like, flat as a board or up and down like a mountain range, so long as it is right. I had grave doubts about the original MBH because as a reader of History I knew that the NH at least had had major climatic changes since the Roman period. These are well documented in the records. As was alluded to in the Der Spiegel piece the Huns came from the north to sack Rome. Why? Because they were forced South by the deteriorating conditions and cold.

 

The Roman Warm Period, the cold of the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age all exist in the historical written records. In the original MBH they vanished. What I could not understand (and frankly still don't) is how a reconstruction, or 5 or even 10 statistical constructs can be viewed as more correct than the written records of the times.

 

But if you don’t like trees, there are plenty of other proxies that document the hockey stick. If you have some peer reviewed scientific information that makes a big difference, please cite a peer reviewed research article that claims to do this.

 

I did that earlier, but just for you. Try here. You will find quite a lot of temp reconstructions from proxies from all over the planet. All data is drawn from the published literature. Will that do? Funny how most of them don't look like hockey sticks though, maybe you just have to pick the right ones to get the required result?

 

BTW, your assumption as to my preferred sources of information is rather off the mark. I read both sides and the referenced papers. As a recent example the question of whether or not there is an increase in the rate of sea level rise has occurred. WUWT says no, others (Sceptical Science I think is one) say yes. The easiest way to work out who was full of BS was to d/load the data and plot it for myself. WUWT is correct, the rate of SLR is decreasing. I presume that you are in favour of people actually looking at the data and working things out as opposed to believing whatever they are told like good little morons?

 

Similarly you might look at this thread I started. I can't account for the results and am still working on the problem. I don't know your background (as in which science) but new insight into the topic can't hurt. Or do you wish to continue under the misapprehension that I'm some sort of drone that parrots only what others say?

 

Cheers.