Science Has Spoken On MMGW, And It Says To Hide The Data

[bobsyouruncle]

...Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

They could have just included his explanation and let people judge for themselves whether or not it was  "benign."

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

[RJLeeb]

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

Well, that part in bold simply isn't true.  Temperature hasn't continued to climb "until the present".  It has cooled.

In my opinion, Mann has undermined his own credibility.

It is particularly noteworthy that Mann was reluctant to give McIntyre the source data he used to generate the hockey stick graph. 

In fact, it wasn't until Congress got involved and asked Mann to testify in front of a sub-committee that he finally acquiesced and turned over all the data.

[Beel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

By the way, the "cooling" trend that is so touted by deniers is a chimera, if you bother to read deeper into the literature.  The link I put up previously addresses this as one of the many denier tacks which the author then rebuts.  In general, as the point of the guardian article makes pretty clear, the body of discovery and analysis which as a whole constitutes the case for both global warming and human assisted global warming is far more complex and diverse than can be accounted for by the machinations of one British University.  There are literally mountains of data derived from many many sources, by thousands of researchers. 

[garboon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science


http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/


Below are the key findings from the report:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets

Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds ("tipping points") increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society—with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases—needs to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

[RJLeeb]

Did that particular workgroup from the IPCC use the Argo network to measure ocean temperature?  The debate seems to have shirted from air temperature to ocean temperature...

Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the [Australian] Climate Change Minister Penny Wong why human emissions can be blamed for global warming, given that air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen five per cent since 1998. I was one of the four independent scientists Fielding chose to accompany him to visit the Minister.

The Minister's advisor essentially told us that short term trends in air temperatures are irrelevant, and to instead focus on the rapidly rising ocean heat content:



Figure 1: Wong's graph.

This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.

(Land thermometers cannot be trusted because, even in the USA, 89 per cent of them fail siting guidelines that they be more than 30 meters from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source, and their data is forever being "corrected".)

Ocean temperatures were not properly measured until mid-2003, when the Argo network became operational.

Before Argo, ocean temperatures were measured with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes fired into the water by a gun from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes. Geographical coverage of the world's oceans was poor, XBTs do not go as deep as Argo, and their data is much less accurate.

The Argo network consists of over 3,000 small, drifting oceanic robot probes, floating around all of the world's oceans. Argo floats duck dive down to 1,000 meters or more, record temperatures, then come up and radio back the results.





The Argo data shows that the oceans have been in a slight cooling trend since at least late-2004, and possibly as far back as mid-2003 when the Argo network started:


Figure 4: Ocean heat content from mid 2003 to early 2008, as measured by the Argo network, for 0-700 metres. There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows. (This shows the recalibrated data, after the data from certain instruments with a cool bias were removed. Initial Argo results showing strong cooling.)

Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in charge of the Argo data, said in March 2008: "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant".

The ocean data that the alarmists are relying on to establish their warming trends is all pre-Argo, from XBTs. Now that we are measuring ocean temperatures properly, the warming trend has disappeared. And by coincidence, it disappeared just when we started measuring it properly!
Notice how the Minister's graph above shows rising ocean heat content for 2004 through 2006, but the Argo data shows a cooling trend? There is a problem here.

The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don't you think this is extraordinary?

If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don't you suppose it would be publicised endlessly?

More at:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

[cccoach]

While this is interesting it has several problems.

1. Dr. David Evans is an electrical engineer with no background in climatology.

http://sciencespeak.com/

2. His findings have been regularly refuted by actual climatologists.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

3. Your source site, globaresearch.ca, is not a research site but a posting site for anti-globalization materials.

4. Your source site globalrearch.ca also maintains that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack but a conspiracy of the United States and Israel to create a global government and have had several anti-semitic complaints lodged against them. I'm not saying that this automatically dismisses their materials but I do have to wonder if a website that says we blew up our own buildings is really that interested in climate change or just has an axe to grind?

[RJLeeb]

While this is interesting it has several problems.

1. Dr. David Evans is an electrical engineer with no background in climatology.

http://sciencespeak.com/

2. His findings have been regularly refuted by actual climatologists.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

3. Your source site, globaresearch.ca, is not a research site but a posting site for anti-globalization materials.

4. Your source site globalrearch.ca also maintains that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack but a conspiracy of the United States and Israel to create a global government and have had several anti-semitic complaints lodged against them. I'm not saying that this automatically dismisses their materials but I do have to wonder if a website that says we blew up our own buildings is really that interested in climate change or just has an axe to grind?

I'm sorry, I thought you and I were going to discuss the science of it and the merits of the arguments rather than just question sources.

I thought we'd established that there's bias all around.

The interesting thing about that article isn't who it is from.  But the data it references.

Is Josh Willis, of NASA, in league with the deniers?

What of the data gathered by the Argo network?

Shouldn't we strive to base predictions on the best data available as opposed to the data we "like"?

[cccoach]

The interesting thing about that article isn't who it is from.  But the data it references.

Agreed, except for the fact that under point 2 of my post as well as from multiple other sources his reading of the data is erroneous. The Argos network is good science but Evans interpretation of the raw data is simply faulty.

[RJLeeb]

The interesting thing about that article isn't who it is from.  But the data it references.

Agreed, except for the fact that under point 2 of my post as well as from multiple other sources his reading of the data is erroneous. The Argos network is good science but Evans interpretation of the raw data is simply faulty.

How is it faulty?  The guy from NASA says the oceans are cooling based on the Argos data.

I can see how it has some spin on it perhaps, but I'm more interested in determining whether or not that particular IPCC work group took the Argos network data into consideration.

If they didn't, that is definitely something to consider don't you think?

[RJLeeb]

The Argos network is good science

Also, I don't know if I'm willing to agree that there is such a thing as "bad science" and "good science".

Science is just science.  Now a researcher or group of researchers could bias the data somehow, or come to an erroneous conclusion based upon biased or faulty data.

I guess I'm just trying to get away from the old "my science is good, yours is bad" kind of thing.

[cccoach]

I agree it is worthy of consideration but only as part of the big picture. There are several interpretations of the Argos data and many climatologists that argue that Evans was reading it wrong. I should have phrased the "good science" "bad science" to say "well practiced science" / "poorly practiced science". I don't even mean this to sound as negative as it does. After reading Evan's resume it's not difficult to realize that he is an intelligent well educated electrical engineer. I would certainly want him to design instruments to detect global warming / cooling but I'm uncertain what qualifies him to be a climatologist anymore than a climatologist designing  pacemakers. This does not mean his views should go unread but when climatologists are saying he misread the data, I'm inclined to side with them.

[RJLeeb]

I agree it is worthy of consideration but only as part of the big picture. There are several interpretations of the Argos data and many climatologists that argue that Evans was reading it wrong. I should have phrased the "good science" "bad science" to say "well practiced science" / "poorly practiced science". I don't even mean this to sound as negative as it does. After reading Evan's resume it's not difficult to realize that he is an intelligent well educated electrical engineer. I would certainly want him to design instruments to detect global warming / cooling but I'm uncertain what qualifies him to be a climatologist anymore than a climatologist designing  pacemakers. This does not mean his views should go unread but when climatologists are saying he misread the data, I'm inclined to side with them.

So throw Evans out of the discussion. 

What about Willis, the guy from NASA, and his claim that the Argos data says the oceans are cooling?

That's the main point I'm trying to make here.

Completely unrelated note: If I were a climatologist that happened to disagree with Willis, it might be hard to restrain myself from saying:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qw9oX-kZ_9k&amp;rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/Qw9oX-kZ_9k&amp;rel=0</a>

I always liked that show.  But then they say I don't have a sense of humor, so what do I know? 

[cccoach]

Completely unrelated but worthy. I loved that show, the only downside was the Child Molester episode that still haunts me to this day. That and first lady Nancy Reagan showing up at a New York penthouse to tell Arnold to "just say no".... very weird and a little beyond suspension of disbelief.

What about Willis, the guy from NASA, and his claim that the Argos data says the oceans are cooling?

Agreed, but I've included a link to a well written discussion and interview with Willis where he discusses why he was wrong and how people have latched on his initial findings without acknowledging that he, himself no longer stands by them. His revised findings do not dismiss ocean cooling entirely but put it well within the range of El Nino, La Nina and shows an overall warming of the oceans.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page4.php

[garboon]

the argo data is available for download - it all depends on how you "massage" the data as to what conclusions you may come.

Nothing of any true impact is going to happen in the next 5 years as far as CO2 emissions so let's juts wait and see - no need for any concern....

[Beel]

Another article covering some of the cliches of denial and why they're wrong:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-higgins/the-ispectatori-is-hot-fo_b_230873.html

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else