Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
The latest Science magazine has an extended interview with Dr. Phil Jones. In this post, I’ll keep away from issues related to Climategate, whether this was a softball interview (given that, for example, there is no discussion of deletion of files, if any) or whether, by refusing to share data with skeptics, Professor Jones was undermining the scientific method (because the scientific method relies, among other things, on giving one’s skeptics the opportunity to disprove one’s conclusions). Instead I will focus on phenological arguments that have been advanced to argue that global warming indeed exists.
These arguments are the subject of the second question posed to Dr. Jones:
”Q: Let’s pretend for a second that we threw out the CRU dataset. What other data are available that corroborate your findings about temperature rise?
“P.J.: There’s the two other datasets produced in the U.S. [at NASA and NOAA]. But there’s also a lot of other evidence showing that the world’s warming, by just looking outside and seeing glaciers retreating, the reduction of sea ice … overall, the reduction of snow areas in the northern hemisphere, the earlier [annual] breakup of sea ice and some land ice and river ice around the world, and the fact that spring seems to be coming earlier in many parts of the world.”
I am very sympathetic to PJ’s argument, because, in the past, I have made the same argument. However, over time I have become more skeptical about the extent to which higher temperatures are the sole determinants of either (a) melting of glaciers and sea ice and (b) earlier springs. Accordingly, these phenological arguments have, in my opinion, become less compelling. I would, therefore, add caveats to PJ’s response.
Melting of glaciers and sea ice. It’s possible that higher levels of soot could have contributed to greater melting (see paper by James Hansen, also see here). On the other hand, ice core measurements in Greenland indicate that soot peaked around 1910 (with minor peaks occurring later), consistent with my claim that air pollution from combustion sources in industrialized countries was being reduced long before any Clean Air Act. In addition, a reduction in precipitation would also be manifested as a net reduction in glacier and ice extent, but it is hard to imagine that precipitation changes will only occur in one direction.
Earlier Springs. This suggests that temperatures might have increased, at least around springtime. This, however, is complicated by the fact that human activities have pumped out CO2, and various forms of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere. Each of these acts as a plant fertilizer. This ought to affect the onset of spring. [If anyone has or knows of empirical information on fertilizers and earlier spring, I would appreciate getting details.] Moreover, while there are numerous studies (see, e.g. here) that indicate that spring has advanced, there is a recent satellite based study that indicates no consistent trends in the starat of spring in North America. This paper, Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982–2006, notes in its abstract:
”We found no evidence for time trends in spring arrival from ground- or model-based data; using an ensemble estimate from two methods that were more closely related to ground observations than other methods, SOS [start of spring] trends could be detected for only 12% of North America and were divided between trends towards both earlier and later spring.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CO2 as a fertilizer bringing on ‘early spring’… probably not. Although in bonsai, (Japanese miniaturized trees) there is widespread belief that fertilizing early with high nitrogen might bring on early budding, it is more likely linked to length of day and chill factors. CO2 would be a fertilizer, which the tree ignores while it is dormant, it has to come out of dormancy first to be able to utilize the fertilizer.
By the way, many bonsai growers laugh at the idea of the Yamal data showing temperature. When you grow a tiny tree in a very small amount of soil, you can really understand how many factors go into growth. Trees stop growing when the temps are below a certain level, and also stop growing when the temps are above a certain level. Using tree rings to find temps is about like using a Husky dog’s hair to find temps and ignoring whether it is a well fed dog or a starving stray.
introducing the fundamental theorem of science-based policy merit:
when scientific arguments are used to form public policy-
e = p * 1/(ß^ß’)
where p is the pragmatic ideal policy constant, ß is the collusion (~buddy~) factor for the media and politicians, ß’ is the scientist buddy factor, and e is the expected result.
“P.J.: There’s the two other datasets produced in the U.S. [at NASA and NOAA].
This is “sellers puff” at best. There is only ONE data set produced, and that is from NOAA. They feed their data set (GHCN and USHCN) into GISS who make a re-processed version of it with GIStemp. But at it’s core it is just a re-homogenized different UHI version of that NOAA data.
NOAA also make an adjusted (homogenized, etc.) version of the same data.
So at the end of the day it all comes down to “Trust NOAA and GHCN”, yet we know that their is dramatic “survivor bias” in the thermometers that persist over time in the GHCN data set.
Phenological?
Momentary brain burp:
At first glance, I thought it was phrenological. Reading the bumps on Dr. Phil’s head would probably give better insights into his thinking.
Has Phil got some problems with writing code…… and filing his papers…… and remembering who he made agreements with…… and remembering whether it was 42 or 49 Chinese stations…… and remembering whether they use 1500 or 5000 monthly stations…… and remembering if it was him that left the FOI file and Harry out in the open?
You know, I’m not surprised that he can’t remember ever doing anything wrong.
“Moreover, while there are numerous studies that indicate that spring has advanced, there is a recent satellite based study that indicates no consistent trends in the starat of spring in North America.”
Here’s a straightforward way to quantify the weight of observations concerning the onset of spring in the literature. GoogleScholar is an open access source for academic publications. A search on its database with “earlier spring” in the title* comes up with 29 publications. In contrast “later spring” gives no results.
Of course there are other publications on seasonal onset not that won’t be found under these search terms, but it is extremely unlikely that the overall balance would be much different.
Jones can therefore rely on an overwhelming weight of published observations to support his statement that spring is coming earlier.
*allintitle: “earlier spring”
If Jones keeps this up he’s going to out compete Hansen and Gavin for the climate media whore of the year award. Next thing you know PJ will be on “The View” with Barbara Walters, giving a tearful blow-by-blow account of his suicidal Gore fixations and carbon fraud fantasies. After that maybe he’ll do Jerry Springer with a surprise special guest appearance by Penny Wong as the jilted ex carbon ho. The possibilities are endless.
a jones (22:47:25) :
Well put.
As far as seasons go, Thoucydides, (455-399BC) an athenian general and historian who lived through and recorded the peloponisian wars divided the year into to seasons: eight months summer (theros) and four months winter (cheimon).
Its about correct even two thousand and a half years later, we need heating from december to march. The rites of spring ( easter) still follow the moon calender. This year easter is early, ( April 4) so maybe spring will be early too. Last year both were late.
“I worry a lot these days. I worry about the arrogance of scientists who blithely claim that they are here to solve the climate problem, as long as they receive massive increases in funding. I worry about the way they covet
new supercomputers. Others talk about”stabilizing the climate“. I’m
terrified of the arrogance, vanity and recklessness of those words.
Why is it so difficult to demonstrate a little humility?“
He said it 20 years ago,climategate proves he was correct.
Arrogance,vanity,recklessness,I know who that describes.
oops
Posted that in the wrong thread,but it fits.hehe.
“But there’s also a lot of other evidence showing that the world’s warming,…”
No tree rings or sea levels mentioned, just a really weak answer for someone so high up to give, and especially when he’s on the ropes to try to defend GW with something which might mitagate his culpability, in other words, if GW was otherwise a strong belief of his.
The establishment is fighting back. The scientists were caught out, so the rag mags come to their rescue. Their editors are back-peddling too. Because their authority as scientific arbiters is under great threat. Rightly.
The journalists who hyped it are now seen as scribblers. Rightly. So their careers are under threat. Rightly.
The Ministers who fell for it are now seen as spendthrift idiots. So their careers are under threat. Rightly.
And the Green organisations who recruited youngsters are now seen as manipulating youth. rightly. So their status is under threat. Rightly.
Don’t think they’ll hoist the white flag. They won’t.
The fight has only just begun………
Methinks spring in the Northern hemisphere might be a little late this year. When they stop using statistics that stop several years ago then maybe a more balanced picture will appear.
Earlier springs, huh? I wonder if the UK spring that is supposed to be three weeks late this year, is three weeks later than the “normal” date of spring or three weeks later than the eleven days earlier that spring has been… lately.
It’s just noise in the system IMHO, and more likely to be caused by the vagaries of sunspots and ocean currents than CO2.
It seems, Anthony, that you are weakening your own argments by saying, oh well, it could be CO2, when actually there are temperature changes going on. although, of course the temperature change is of the order of 0.25 C per century and within the error bars for uncalibrated climate stations.
And a longer growing season is a bad thing because…?
What I really want to know about is that “homogenisation” process. That’s where the fiddle factors are subjectively added in. Does anyone know how that process works?
It’s clear that climate change is far more complex than even the most complex thinking climate scientist. So, why does anyone even persist in saying that we know what’s going on and why? We clearly don’t. So, all the politicians in the world who are saying the science is in and the debate is over are clearly liars or fools or both. That makes their policies on climate change not only false but also should be proven illegal in a court of law.
Joanie
Agreed. Trees also change thier growth rate when water is short, when a nutrient is in low concentration… when pests eat the leaves, when other trees shade them from the sun… there are too many variables to get a lot of climate data out of tree rings. And as we know that e.g. the MWP migh have been “local”… it also depends where your tree is situated.
Are Jones’ answers those of a scientist? The more he opens his mouth publicly the more he sticks his foot right in it.
Yet another great posting by Indur M. Goklany.
But I have been away, far from the Blogosphere, for nearly three weeks. And one of the most obvious things that has been going on is the attempt to re-brand Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of them.
Jones, let us not forget, has been showing himself for years as one of the most arrogant and tendentious clowns in the “Hockey Team”. Anyone reading regularly here (if not, try:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_6?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=hockey+stick+illusion&sprefix=hockey
Brilliant!) will readily accept that Jones’s scientific credibility is lower that a rattlesnake’s a**hole.
Now he is being presented (with enthusiastic help from the BBC / Grauniad and the rest) as a slightly bumbling but good natured boffin who might have quite inadvertently made the odd trifling error of presentation but whose Heart Is In The Right Place.
I never thought he would be sacked from UEA. But even if it is decided that he should be made a scapegoat for the whole Climatic Research Unit’s vipers’ nest, it is absolutely obvious that he will re-appear as a Pundit. Probably on the BBC or in the Grauniad. Can a knighthood be far behind?
We really should start a campaign that not one of these crooks should receive one penny of taxpayers’ money ever again. Did they ever show any concern about the consequences of their AGW propaganda?
“just looking outside and seeing glaciers retreating, the reduction of sea ice … overall, the reduction of snow areas in the northern hemisphere, the earlier [annual] breakup of sea ice and some land ice and river ice around the world, and the fact that spring seems to be coming earlier in many parts of the world”
I cant believe these are PJ world 😀 Only a warmist can tall like this.
>4 decades ago, my Biology taught that plants calibrate their phases to day-length – rather night-length – from the rate of degradation of auxins (regulating hormones).
Not the whole story of course, but I would guess that physicists know aught about biology, when they attempt to define the start of Spring.
Gasp! Just seen this in the San Francisco Chronicle – article titled – “The Winter of Global Warming” by Debra J. Saunders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/18/EDCV1C2BNJ.DTL
I can imagine the poor reporter’s email address will be swamped with protests in no time.
It doesn’t sit right with me that Dr Jones can claim that:
“the MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia”
yet he remains eager to downplay the possibility of the WMP as a global phenonema due to to a lack of evidence for the SH, but on the other hand has no trouble (along with the rest of the hockeystick team) in accepting a lone tree in Siberia (YAD061) as evidence enough in pointing to an unprecedented 20th C warming.
Three continents and half an ocean vs one tree. And they chose the tree.
No, it just don’t sit right.
Earlier Spring times?
It’s no coincidence that the UK (and Western Europe) is the source of many AGW believers. Urban heat island effects are more likely here due to the density of population and industry.
Undoubtedly our perception of warming is coloured by our experiences. Most of us (including my 70+ year old parents) are all too young to remember clearly what it felt like in the warmer part of the twentieth century. How can you not get an impression of warming when for most of your life it has, in fact, been warming? Add to that our changing lifestyles. Many in the UK grew up without the central heating we now consider de rigueur. We walked to school in thin, skimpy clothes and rarely got to ride in cars, let alone those with heating systems that came on before we got to our destination. It wasn’t just the climate that was colder then.
However, even accounting for UHI, creative temperature accounting and changing circumstances, most people in the UK would say that they think the climate has warmed. I’d be amongst them and so would our flora and fauna.
Looking at the CET divided into seasons, it seems that spring and autumn show a greater warming signal than winter and summer. The change looks to have happened gradually but there was an acceleration in the mid to late eighties. But what’s changed?
My answer would be ‘lots of things’ but noticeably fog and smog.
It’s very rare for fog or smog to be seen in the UK these days and the ‘pea soupers’ of most British childhoods are almost unheard of. One only has to drive into a fog bank, in a car with a temperature sensor, to notice that it’s very much colder than in clear sunshine. So a decrease in foggy days would have a noticeable impact on the climate. I’m not the only person who’s noted this effect.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aPCrSRgkmEFs&refer=uk
This report was from Dave Britton, a meteorologist at the UK Met Office. It says “The decline in fog has raised temperatures by 0.08 degrees Celsius (0.14 Fahrenheit) per decade across Europe, or up to a fifth of the total warming observed, the scientists calculated. In eastern Europe, the drop in fog may account for half of the total warming,”
Successive decades have seen the decline in domestics coal burning, demolition of all but the biggest power stations, changes to lower sulphur coal, the ‘dash for gas’ and finally the introduction of desulphurisation equipment to the remaining coal fired power plants.
I wonder how many degrees of warming we could account for if we added up all the real (but not CO2) changes and the perceived changes like those Mr Goklany outlines above?
In my experience, spring usually starts around the 21st of March. I’ve already started my seeds, just as I have for the last 45 years. Burpee hasn’t changed their planting dates in my lifetime, I guess they don’t believe in global warming, just results.