Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Climategate Cloud

The reality that perhaps has not sunk in is that the science of climatology now has a serious cloud hanging over it.  It will not be dispelled easily.

The reason it came about is not well understood.  The data was not openly made available and this allowed actual manipulation of the data to take place. An example of this behavior shows how insidious the process can be.  In 1996, I became aware of the conjecture that the earth’s crust had been shifted thirty degrees south through Hudson Bay around twelve and a half thousand years ago.  This was a truly extraordinary claim.  The data supporting the claim was obviously extensive but mostly subject to some form of alternative interpretation.

In fact the geographical conflicts provided by Ice Age geology held up the acceptance of the idea of ice ages for decades back when it was first proposed.  There are real difficulties with present accepted theory unless a crustal shift is accepted.  Again time and scholarly forgetfulness has left this on the table.  The facts were compelling enough for Einstein to support the case back in the early fifties.

I knew that such a shift should produce a signature in the Greenland ice cores at the break point.  I was able to locate the raw data and download that data.  I discovered that there was a pretty clear change in precipitation post and pre event.   It was not particularly dramatic but sufficient to know that shoving them through the appropriate statistical software would produce a clear break.  That was the type of decisive evidence that is difficult to properly explain away.  Not perhaps as dramatic as the ten degree jumps shown in the Vostok core from Antarctica but still real. The core only goes back to a little past the key date and begins to break up after that though continuing to confirm the precipitation change.

That same data has since been put onto a commercial basis and is not so readily available to an individual researcher such as myself.

The point I am making is that all data of this nature needs to be readily available.  We now know that all climate data needs to be thrown open to public inspection and review.  That way, an open discussion can take place through appropriate forums that serve to enhance the acceptance and even refinement of the data.

It is utterly wrong that the hockey stick did not get a proper statistical review the moment it was published.  What is worse is that an independent researcher needed years to access the underlying data in order to discover it was badly flawed.

As an aside, I personally suspected it was rubbish the moment I saw it, but again had neither the time nor inclination to dig into the paper itself.  I have seen a lot of scientific rubbish pumped out over the years to be particularly excited by another example and I felt it would be quickly forgotten.  It turned out to have longer legs than anyone imagined and I am sure plenty of other observers had exactly the same opinion.

Therefore there is going to be scientific error.  It can only be overcome by proper publication of both the interpretation and the raw data.  CRU was an accident waiting to happen.

December 8, 2009 3:30 AM

Physicists Stick to Warming Claim Post-ClimateGate

Posted by Declan McCullagh

The professional association for physicists is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency. 

When asked on Monday whether it will rethink the statement calling for immediate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the American Physical Societysaid it would not. APS spokeswoman Tawanda Johnson replied with a pre-ClimateGate announcement from November 10 reiterating support for the 2007 statement; neither APS president-electCurtis Callan nor Johnson would answer other questions on the topic. 

Pressure on this venerable society of physicists, which was founded in 1899 at Columbia University, is coming from members who are squarely in the scientific mainstream and are alarmed at the state of climate science revealed in the leaked e-mail messages and program files from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. (SeeCBS News' prior coverage.) 

Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law. Internal investigations are now underway at East Anglia, Penn State, and the British government's weather forecasting unit. 

One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group. 

They've been circulating a letter saying: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done." 

Some of the same scientists had asked the APS, pre-ClimateGate, to revise its climate policy statement. To the applause of like-minded bloggers who dubbed the petition "a silly distraction," the APS shot down that idea on November 10. 

In the aftermath of the embarrassing data leaks, however, Princeton's Happer says that about half of the APS members they've contacted now support the petition (which, after all, is only asking for an independent analysis of the science involved). 

Of the signatories so far, Happer says, 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and there is a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. He adds: "Some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition. The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster." 

This has become a common refrain: Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research, calls the climate change axis a "cartel." A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said the scientists implicated in the e-mails "should be barred" from future United Nations proceedings and warned that "the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas." One estimate from a free-market group says that 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are "up to their necks in ClimateGate." 

Below are excerpts from e-mail messages that the scientists behind the petition to the APS sent me on Monday: 

Princeton University's Robert Austin: 

I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work -- we are owed examination of the analysis.

Princeton University's William Happer: 

The APS has not responded to our petition. We submitted the petition several weeks ago... Prof. Callan, the president elect of the APS, who works in the same building in Princeton University as Professor Austin and I, has been unable to find time to discuss the petition with us. 

We have independently contacted as many members of the APS as we can to ask for their support of the petition. We are getting about as many supportive as negative responses, so I would judge that about half the membership of the APS agrees with us. Those who oppose us usually have little or nothing to say about the science and plenty of things to say about what evil people we are. Those who agree with us are troubled by the lack of scientific support for the current APS statement and the highly political nature of it.

Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara: 

I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former. 

So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it's easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don't bother you -- you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

So it isn't simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative 

No comments: