A series of events appears to be unfolding in the UK that provide for a serial story. As they say in the news biz “it has legs”.
Two more stories have emerged from the Guardian by Fred Pearce. They read like Climate Audit narratives rather than Guardian stories we’ve come to know in the past. In fact, Climate Audit is heavily cited, a first that I can recall.
Here are the two headlines:
and this one….
The Guardian is keeping up the pressure on UEA/CRU and Dr. Jones. It’s almost like a “death spiral” to borrow a phrase from Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC.
I would not be surprised if resignations are being considered.
h/t to Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum for links
UPDATE: It appears that the Guardian reporter has tipped his hand. WUWT commenter “dodgy geezer” writes:
…note this comment from the Guardian, explaining why they seem to be addressing the skeptical line for the first time. It seems they are building the story into a big ‘disproof’ of the skeptical position. Find it at:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Question – What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?
Many thanks for your comments and questions. The fall-out from the hacked UEA emails is the hottest story in climate science at the moment and a lot of claims about what they tell us have been flying around since they were made public in November.
The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.
We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.
Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.
J Randerson
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
It may be that Jones will be made the sacrifice for the FoI transgressions, so that they can get the bus back on the road.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some of us perhaps need to ask the question: “Just suppose the alarmists are right and the actions of mankind are indeed responsible for recent global warming, then what particular action of ours has caused it?”
A good scientist – for example, a geologist, physicist or chemist – would ask: “OK, what have we done to significantly change the face of the Earth over the past 100 years, particularly over the past 50 years which could account for the warming?”
There are several possible answers:
1. Lots more asphalt roads now absorbing heat, as opposed to reflecting the sun’s rays. Verdict: too small to be a significant factor.
2. We have been cleaning up the atmosphere over the past 50 years, there are therefore much less ‘cooling’ sulphates than previously. Verdict: may be a minor factor.
3. Much of the world’s land surface is now irrigated – from back garden (yard) to fields of rice, grape vines, tomatoes etc – hundreds (maybe thousands) of billions of tonnes of water are now evaporating into the atmosphere each year and water vapour is a recognised greenhouse gas. On land, this is going to have a significant impact on water vapour levels in many parts of the world. Verdict: Something large enough to potentially have a significant impact, but no research available.
4. We have built thousands of power stations over the past fifty years, most with huge cooling towers – cooled by water – significantly adding to the water vapour content of the atmosphere. Verdict: Probably having a measurable impact, but no research available.
5. Urban Heat Islands (UHIs) Verdict: locally a significant impact, but globally probably only a very small one. The big problem is that a large percentage of temperature monitoring stations are located within these UHIs and insufficient compensation is made in the published data to compensate for this.
6. We burn a lot of stuff these days, huge amounts of soot particles are released into the atmosphere. These settle on snow and glaciers having the twin effect of reducing reflection of the sun’s rays and acting as a catalyst for melting. Verdict: Could be a significant factor in the colder parts of the planet, but no one has yet tried to measure its impact.
7. Then there is methane, a supposedly powerful greenhouse gas, now approaching 1.7 parts per million in the atmosphere. Verdict: too small to have even the slightest effect, even if it increased tenfold.
8. Carbon dioxide levels – up 50% over the past century to a terrifying one part in every 2,600 in our atmosphere – is a known greenhouse gas. One part in 2600? That’s like putting a match box full of cotton wool in the loft of your house and saying you have insulated it. Verdict: Possible very minor impact on global temperatures.
Conclusion: A real scientist would comment: the geological record shows that constant climate change is the norm, so what we are experiencing today is probably mostly that, but water vapour levels could also be a partial culprit for recent warming.
Hasn’t pearce noticed the stupidity of the sub heading. Ancient trees dragged from frozen siberian bogs etc surely he needs to ask himself how it grew there, in the chuffing permafrost!
Gilbert (21:32:28) :
As previously noted, the comments are the most interesting part of the articles. I found the following one of the most interesting:
Fentonchem
4 Feb 2010, 2:01AM
“timber hauled from the permafrost of the Yamal peninsula”
Trees do not grow in permafrost.
The Yamal peninsula is, at present, permafrost.
The ‘team’ show that the Yamal peninsula is warmer now than at any time in the past.
The Yamal tree series proves that the temperature of the permafrost Yamal peninsula is higher than it has been for more that 1500 years.
These tree rings of trees found in the permafrost clearly demonstrate that there are no trees in the permafrost. Q.E.D.
Sounds like dodgy science.
—————
Gilbert,
I’m afraid you have succeeded in demonstrating how a faulty premise can lead you astray.
Trees do grow in the seasonally thawed ground above permafrost.
That is not to say that dendrothermometers should in any way be taken seriously.
“It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this”
Shouldn’t that be: “it has been remiss of us, burying our journalistic heads in the sand for years over stories like this”..?
And now they are claiming exclusives! Well, I suppose they are in their little parallel universe…
Peter Miller – nice summary. Should be standard issue in classrooms.
Deech56,
There are actually quite a few papers out there that say that the warming caused by CO2 is on the order of 1C per doubling (not 3), and that water vapor may provide a negative feedback rather than a positive. Do some more current digging than you have.
Peter Miller,
Current CO2 concentration is indeed 388.1 parts per million (or 1 part in 2600 as you have converted); however, it is important to realize that quite a few studies have shown it to be much higher than this in the past, and this was LONG before any human causation whatsoever.
At the Mauna Loa Observatory, CO2 concentration has risen from ~310ppm to ~390 ppm in the past 50 years, which is a rise of about 26%; however, one must remember that nearby Kilua’ea has been errupting nearly non-stop for about half of that time period, and I am not really sure if anyone has studied the impact of a nearby constantly errupting volcano on this measurement. Mauna Loa Observatory seems to be the most frequently cited station for “global” CO2 concentration if you google “atmospheric CO2 graph” or something of the sort.
Many papers also claim that prior to 1850, atmospheric CO2 concentration had been STEADY AT AROUND 250-270 PPM FOR 400,000 YEARS (?!?!?) I find that claim to be pretty doubtful. I have seen other studies that claim that it has varied by quite a bit during that same time period.
So, what we need seems to be more data, and we also need to determine which methods (if any) are actually reliable for reconstructing not only old temperature data, but old CO2 concentration data as well.
If we can find reasonably reliable and verifiable methods to reconstruct both historical CO2 and historical temperature, then we are at least more likely to be able to show whether what is occurring now is likely natural variations, or likely caused by human intervention in the environment.
Overall, to say that the scientific misconduct does not undermine or refute the data is not really accurate. What has happened HAS cast doubt on both the historical temperature reconstructions, as well as the historical CO2 reconstructions, both of which are CRITICAL to our understanding of what is happening now, and whether it is nature, man, or some combination which is causing it.
If it has indeed warmed approximately 0.8C in the last 150 years (and even most skeptics believe that it has), what must be determined is whether such a change (and the rate of the change) fall within the boundaries of what is “normal” from past experience, or whether such a change is outside of the confidence limits of what has been normal in the past. If such changes have occurred fairly often in the past, that is an indicator that we may well not be the controlling factor in what is going on. If such a change is truly “unprecidented” (which I personally doubt), then it would be an indicator that we are currently driving climate in a way which has not happened in the past.
I personally see a lot of people referring to 1850 as “the end of the little ice age”. If this is indeed the case, one would expect extended and perhaps even fairly rapid warming. After all, what happens at the end of an ice age (be it a “little” one or a big one”? I would think…. warming??
The Gaurdian may be playing a double game, but is dangerous in one respect.
Every Article for or against AGW is exposing more of their Readers to the TRUTH.
It won’t affect the die hards, but any reasonable readers may decide to investigate a bit more for themselves, the way most of us on here have done.
Deech56 (02:30:29) :
You obviously are not keeping abreast of the latest reports that “That the climate sensitivity is not around 3 degC/doubling?” is much too high.
As CO2 is still rising and Temperatures aren’t perhaps you have a logical explanation an don’t bother with 10 years is just Weather and not Climate it won’t work on this Site.
Deech56 (02:30:29) :
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm
PaulH (15:23:35) :
“What is the purpose of the glass sphere in the Gloomian (oops Guardian) photo of the Yamal weather station?”
A. To focus the energy from the Sun onto the weather station, they could not find a magnifying glass.
B. To turn everything upside-down so as to hide the decline.
Yeah, I agree that if the Guardian is trying to steer the AGW bus back on course then this article is an attempt to get back on the road by driving into the swamp.
The residual effect of Climategate will be a hyper-sensative FOIA environment and scientists actually thinking more clearly about their work at every stage because it is all an FOIA away from public scrutiny.
I suppose if you are a true believer then you would naturally assume that in such an environment that global warming would still be proven… but AGW is batting 0.000 against skeptics over the last 4 years, so their trust in the science is misplaced.
Deech56 (02:30:29):
This has been explained repeatedly, but you cannot seem to deal with the way the Scientific Method operates: Skeptics have nothing to prove.
It is the purveyors of the CO2=Catastrophic AGW hypothesis who have failed to overcome the burden of showing that their hypothesis explains reality, and makes better predictions, than the theory of natural climate variability — which the alarmist crowd has never been able to falsify because the observed temperature changes remain well within historical parameters.
The long held theory of natural climate variability is what must be falsified. But the alarmists constantly resort to turning the Scientific Method on its head, and demand that skeptics must falsify their scary new CO2=CAGW hypothesis instead.
Climate alarmists are deliberately misrepresenting the Scientific Method: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit: the proof is upon he who affirms, not upon he who denies; since he who denies a fact cannot prove a negative.
Regarding the hypothesis that human produced CO2 is causing “unprecedented” global warming, the burden lies upon those who make that claim, not on the skeptics who question it.
The same applies to those who claim that there has been an alarming increase in global temperatures: the burden is on those who make that claim. And as we have seen, all such claims prior to the satellite era are now highly suspect. The raw temperature record has either been heavily and repeatedly “adjusted,” or it has been “lost.” At the same time, the great majority of rural temperature stations have been de-commissioned. The result is that the temperature record is unreliable.
The ‘bulk of the recent warming’ has not been empirically shown to be due to CO2. It may or may not be. But there is no real world evidence to verify that assertion. None.
However, there is empirical [real world] evidence, published by the IPCC and NOAA, showing that almost all of the emitted CO2 is the result of natural processes — and not the result of human emissions: click
The alarmists have turned themselves into pretzels trying to blame natural CO2 emissions on human activity. But the fact remains that it is the planet, and not human activity, that is responsible for almost all of the CO2 currently being emitted.
The ‘greenhouse gas’ claim is based on the presumption of a 3°C or greater temperature rise per doubling of CO2 — which in turn is based on the debunked presumption that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century or more: click. The entire CO2=CAGW hypothesis is built on a house of cards, with no verifying empirical evidence supporting it.
When you preface your argument based on appeals to corrupted authorities by asking, “Where are the scientific papers showing that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are not rising? That warming has not occurred?…”, you need to understand that neither papers, nor the climate peer review process, nor computer climate models, are “evidence.”
Models are tools [and not very accurate ones], and your alarmist papers are opinions simply hand-waved through peer review by friendly referees — while skeptical papers are by and large stopped by the same gatekeepers.
Empirical evidence is composed of real world, verifiable facts, such as daily raw temperature readings taken from calibrated instruments. Since the alarmist clique lacks any real evidence to back their claims, they resort to endless appeals to various authorities, which in turn use always-inaccurate GCMs [not one of which predicted the flat to cooling temperatures since 2002], and peer reviewed papers citing other peer reviewed papers — which all cite the same authors, in a round robin of rent-seeking grant hogs with both front feet in the public trough. That may be lucrative. But it is not the Scientific Method.
Dodgy Geezer (17:16:04) :
“Fairly incoherent rage against the BBC”
Some interesting comments on that piece, but for me significant for my first sighting of a contest-winning Glaciergate rebuttal:
“2035 was simply a typo made by some lowly IPCC droid, whereas in fact the (Russian) article being cited read 2350”.
We’ve met some really effective Indian con men over the years – the Maharishi and the Orange Bhagwan come readily to mind – but that Raj Patchy really takes the biscuit!
Poptech (16:07:27) :
Poptech, the author of that piece should be prosecuted for plagarism. SciAm ran it first 2 months ago: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Of course it is the same old tired line as it was then, at least SciAm was first though.
But the IPCC didn’t cite the Russian paper, so that’s a non-starter. That false typo excuse was (knowingly, I think) inserted into one of the AP’s articles.
Roger Knights (12:33:16) :
“But the IPCC didn’t cite the Russian paper”
Indeed, the typo thing is simply made up … but for those coming to the issue for the first time it’s a lie that effectively discourages further enquiry. We can all identify with the fact that a typo is “an easy mistake to make”.
In fact in a week or so Patchy will probaby comer to believe it too, because:
” To tell you the truth, I hardly interact with Professor Hasnain. He is out in the field most of the time. I know nothing about glaciology, and there are 900 people working in TERI and particularly with the time I’ve been devoting to the IPCC report, I’ve been delegating most of these things to people at the next level. So, I’ve never discussed this situation with him at all.”
From a thoroughly revealing interview:
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15473066
I wrote something earlier about the Grauniad’s motives. Having thought some more today, I do also wonder whether, if we look at this from a para-religious point of view, the process they’re going through is something like confession. They’ll acknowledge their sins, be chided, be absolved, do penance and then feel that it’s fine to return to the usual business with a clear conscience and pure soul. It’s simply purging the psychic bad matter.
RE PeterB in Indianapolis (07:25:42) :
A C Osborn (08:01:49) :
I’ve been following the literature and haven’t seen too much recently besides Lindzen & Choi, which was demolished on this site by Roy Spencer and in the scientific literature by Trenberth, Fasullo, O’Dell and Wong. There are many lines of evidence that go into the 3 degC value; it’s all in Knutti & Hegerl, which is the state of the art, circa 2008.
And of course, temperature does not increase in lock step with CO2 – there are other influences that influence short-term noise. Yes, a decade is too short to determine a trend. That’s basic statistics, which should work on this Site.
RE A C Osborn (08:07:28) :
Yes, I am familiar with Frank, et al., but these findings do not support a sensitivity of 1 degC/doubling. From the BBC article:
This paper only addresses the release of carbon as a feedback when temperatures increase. Some models incorporate this feedback, others do not. Again, from the BBC article:
RE Smokey (09:31:40) :
Well, you posted a lot of words, but your supporting material wasn’t from the peer-review literature. How am I supposed to believe a site with a headline such as, “Will ‘Peer-Reviewed’ Become Known As The ‘Science of Idiocracy’? Should Anyone Believe Scientists Any Longer?”
BTW, If you want to talk vaccines, I’ve done plenty of research in the field, and the greatest push-back to Wakefield’s research was from mainstream scientists and physicians – the consensus, as it were.
Deech56 (17:34:00),
*Sheesh!* You STILL do not get it:
It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything.
Even so, I responded to all your points.
For someone to admit that to him the Scientific Method is just “a lot of words” indicates a tightly closed mind. Cognitive dissonance has taken hold.
I answered the points you asked about, even though the burden is on the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis to show that it can withstand skeptical scrutiny. It hasn’t been able to, so the alarmists turn the tables, and demand that skeptics must, in effect, prove a negative. The alarmists are in a desperate situation.
My point was pretty clear: there is no empirical evidence showing that CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperatures. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers, and lots of computer climate models. But there is no real world evidence showing that an X increase in CO2 will cause an X increase in temperature. In fact, the planet itself is falsifying your hypothesis.
Show us real world evidence, if you can. Because we already know the climate peer review gatekeepers have traded in their professional ethics for fame and fortune, and the climate modelers couldn’t model their way out of a wet paper bag. And the data and methodologies are a big time secret. What does that tell you?
Show us real world evidence. Or your CO2=CAGW hypothesis fails.
RE Smokey (18:09:38) :
Lots of words, but little evidence. I’m looking for good references, like this paper, which shows a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and CH4. Evans, et al. also showed increases in downward longwave radiation. “…an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.” Real world evidence that atmospheric anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing warming.
Deech56 (18:43:18),
That’s not empirical evidence. It’s just another opinion, hand-waved through peer review by a friendly referee. How can the authors know the increases in downward longwave radiation from 160 years ago? How do they know an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 was created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850? They can’t; they are speculating and assuming.
See what I mean? Real world evidence is hard to establish. It requires rigor. It wouldn’t be such a problem, but the climate peer review system has been gamed, and the clique running it can no longer be trusted. Their reputations are in tatters. Neither do they disclose their data and methods, so their work can not be verified. That leaves empirical evidence, which can be replicated, and cannot be fabricated.
They brought this situation on themselves.
The answer is, of course, that they simply made it up as they went along, as the Harry_read_me file admits. They were the ones who invented entire data sets, they were the ones who programmed the GCMs, they were the ones who controlled most of the relevant journals, they were the ones who corrupted the FOIA officer(s).
Now they are caught. They cannot disclose their fraudulent data, or their methodologies, or their algorithms, or their notes, or their experiments — which must all be disclosed to scientific skeptics, according to the Scientific Method.
So they turn the Scientific Method on its head, and demand that skeptics must prove a negative. That will only buy them some time — but the questions will never go away, until there is a final reckoning.
It wasn’t initially made up, it was a coincidence. But, now that the dust has settled, the “typo” idea should be dropped. Not even Choo Choo, Lal, or the IPCC has the brass to make that excuse, although maybe they don’t have to, with Seth Borenstein doing it for them at the AP. Here’s what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about this matter, in response to crosspatch:
No, that was just a first guess as to where the mistake had come from, because someone [Cogley] noticed the 2305 number and speculated that a transposition had been made. Now [thanks to Cogley’s deeper digging] we know the true source, the Hasnian cliam via the New Scientist report via WWF, because the footnote in AR4 referenced the latter, and the parties involved in making and reporting the claim have disclosed what went on.
Roger Knights (19:13:58)
>> It wasn’t initially made up, it was a coincidence. <<
Ah, I see. All of which had passsed me by, so many thanks for that.