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.
Bill (07:19:25) :
I agree, dust is much more significant than soot. You might enjoy the link below. Has to do with dust and climate change. I’ve been in southern Italy and had to wear a dust mask due to African dust blown across the Mediterranean.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/ice-age-is-nigh.html
No surprises in PJ’s arguments other than their imprecision. I would have thought he had this spiel well honed by now. I am shocked, though, that his handlers are letting him do these interviews. I have to wonder what their strategy might be. Or if he’s decided to call his own plays and they’re frantically pacing the sidelines right now.
In areas of New Zealand, each little valley has it’s own ‘Spring planting calendar’ for planting traditional plants such as the Kumera, a Polynesian variety (or varieties) of sweet potato. These calendars are adhered to by the indgenous Maori who have lived in their specific area for generations. The calendars are based on phases of the moon and various other astral phenomena which forecast the variable timing of the arrival of ‘Spring’ with reasonable reliability, which is considerably more reliabile than many current climate modellers can predict any natural phenomena. The Maoris’ ancestors used astral navigation in their enormous journeys across parts of the Pacific Ocean when European mariners were afraid of going too near the edge of the sea and falling off to be eaten by the great turtle that supported the earth.
To me, current AGW alarmism has as much credibility as the great turtle and any remaining shreds of credibility are being stripped off with the passing of each day.
I looked outside and saw the sea ice and glaciers melting, and decided to quit drinking forthwith.
Keep hammering away, maybe one day you’ll make an impression.
Regarding glacial retreat, here’s one factor that doesn’t get much attention, although I think a Swiss study about the alps in the 40s recently talked about it, namely short-wave radiation:
Tom P,
There are other more innocuous reasons why “later spring” papers do not appear in journals. A paper showing there is a later spring in one geographic area is inherently uninteresting. What does it prove? It is not in support of any hypothesis – there is no global cooling meme in serious academia. And no-one is going to take a study of one area as a refutation of AGW. A paper showing a later spring is at least in support of a physical and well known theory.
I think your own test evidences this. We know that even if we accept AGW, there will be some areas in which spring is later. Yet, you cannot find a single paper dealing with a narrow geographic area that shows that. Why do you think that is?
Don B (07:29:09) :
Somebody needs to tell Phil Jones that the plural of anecdote is not data.
Cheers
“Anecdata”! I luv it! The foundation of the New House of Climatology. Trootherism!.
Tom P,
I’m not playing. You still miss or won’t see, or refuse to see, the point. At some level, every scientist has to accept the wisdom of the published literature in order to move forward with research. This is especially true of collateral work which is not directly in the line of sight of the researcher, because it will, like it or not, colour his perceptions. Once the mask of respectibility of peer review is shattered, as it has been now with ALL climatological research, then all work within the field of vision of any given researcher must now be subject to additional scrutiny, if only to confirm that one is not about to hang their career on false premises. This is, of course, a natural process of good science in any case, but now the assumed position at the start of anything, must be that the published work (at least in as far as climatology goes) may have a higher than expected “false” factor. Maybe this doesn’t change anything for a diligent scientist, but it sure alters the political and social landscape for science.
Roger Knights (08:44:51) : For any glacier to grow water is needed. South american glaciers were shown as examples of GW, however you should know now what the news are: For the first time ever, more than 4000 tourists got trapped in Macchu Picchu because torrential rains and they had to be evacuated, all of them, by helicopter. Well, at higher altitudes these rains meant snow falling, so it is expected several years of growing glaciers in this new solar minimum. Please, do not forget we are in it already, so watch and enjoy the minimum!
HGI (08:45:22) :
“We know that even if we accept AGW, there will be some areas in which spring is later. Yet, you cannot find a single paper dealing with a narrow geographic area that shows that. Why do you think that is?”
Although the models predict varying levels of regional global warming, there’s no area where a long-term decline in temperatures is expected. For instance, here’s the regional predictions from IPCC AR4:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9287/regionalwarming.png
Therefore the absence of any publications showing a later spring does not require the explanations you offer.
OT but interesting: get ready for some in the Warmist camp to start claiming that the halt in temp rise and increased snowfall etc. is the result of the steps taken to reduce CO2 to date, i.e. they will try to take credit for the natural cycle. I can’t wait to see the models for this one.
Further to the comments of Joanie (00:37:28) [snipped]:
“…..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.”
I claim no expertise in bonsai, but I recall reading of trees found growing in or near Ottawa (ON). IIRC (and this is just from hazy memory), trees were found on a hillside only an inch or two in diameter yet the trees were several hundred years old.
IanM
BAD LINK
Dr. Golanky,
The link you give for “Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982–2006” links instead to a different paper by French authors finding an adverse effect of warming and increased aridity on growth of young trees in French Guiana.
Tom P:
Here’s a straightforward way to quantify the weight of observations concerning the onset of spring in the literature.
Searching on “earlier spring” in the title of a publication give 29 results, while “later spring” gives zero. There are overall seven times more publications with “later” in the title than “earlier” so there’s certainly no bias introduced by the choice of the terms.
Although there’s many more publications on changes of the seasonal onset than these, it is safe to say that the substantial weight of the published observational evidence backs Phil Jones here.
[my bold]
Tom, that “reasoning” almost makes me pine away unconsolably for Briffa’s own gold standard for doing “Climate Science”, his overt denial of what statistics is actually designed for by instead going back to using it as an “argument by purposefully selected anecdotes” in order to get a pre-chosen result allegedly “proving” GW.
Quoting and counting words out of context and appealing to an even unproven consensus are not the weakest arguments you can give as an ~”straightforward quantification of observational evidence”, Tom, but close.
However, it is another great example of the “methods” involved in doing “Post Normal Science”. So thanks!
Everyone should note that this Science interview was conducted on Feb. 5 while the BBC interview was on Feb. 13. Jones changed his tune between the two interviews, with the BBC being more forthright and honest IMO.
An interesting question is: Is he correct about the number of weather stations used? He states — “The two American sets use a larger number of [temperature] stations than we do. They both use about 7200 stations and we use about 5000 stations”.
Is this correct? If not, why did he misrepresent the number. How many factually incorrect statements is he making as “spin”.
I’m almost convinced that Jones is faking his actions to stall for time. Once the heat is off him in a few months, he’ll go back to his old tricks or stay low. I still believe he should be charged with fraud and brought to account in a court of law. Time to get serious about these clowns.
Early spring, late summer, early autumm, early winter. Easy!, just watch a lunar calendar, or a church calendar. Next spring will have to wait until “holy week”☺, in april.
Duration of ice cover of Lake Mendota, located in Madison, Wisconsin, has decreased over the last 150 years.
http://www.lakeshorepreserve.wisc.edu/photo-gallery/lakemendota/Lake_Mendota_Ice_Cover_Bohanan.gif
[snip – we aren’t going to discuss smoking and cancer here]
Original Mike: Can I assume that the population of Madison and the built-up areas around the lake increased during that time, especially since 1960?
The guest columnist’s comments bother me a little. It’s almost as if there’s this implied presumption that it’s anthropogenic, without considering any of the evidence in history of the condition of Greenland when Vikings were there farming, or the reports by captains of ships sailing in the arctic hundreds of years ago as to sea ice density and location. It also ignores Lord Monckton’s main point, that while there’s been some reduction in arctic ice, there’s been an increase during the same period in the antarctic. All of the anthropogenic modelling is an unproven theory, and exemplifies the arrogance of modern civilization. Here we have an earth billions of years old, and we have temperature readings going back only over a single century, and think we know it all. It’s such a crock. Very recently the tree ring proxy data was described as”indisputable” and “rock solid” according to one leading climatologist, and now we know that the proposed correlation fails post 1960. It’s all a fraud and pretext to establish a global government. How many dozens of comments by the world’s billionaires and leaders speaking of a new world order and climate change do we have to hear before people start to get it? As soon as the USSR dissolved, Gorbachev formed the “Green Cross” organization and stated that the “global environmental crisis” would be the “international disaster key ” to “unlock the new world order.” Wake up, people.
I would like to nominate that the next realistic conference on climate change be held in Redcar, UK.
RE (Above):
My link does not work. Alternatively, Patrick Michaels has covered the same story on his World Climate Report. Hopefully this link works, and he reviews the same article in depth.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/09/09/another-message-from-kyoto/
Tom P (03:14:38) :
“It’s possible to try to quantify the weight of published evidence here using GoogleScholar. Searching on “earlier spring” in the title of a publication give 29 results, while “later spring” gives zero. There are overall seven times more publications with “later” in the title than “earlier” so there’s certainly no bias introduced by the choice of the terms.
Although there’s many more publications on changes of the seasonal onset than these, it is safe to say that the substantial weight of the published observational evidence backs Phil Jones here.”
Tom. The first thing you need to realize is that nobody takes pal reviewed science at FACE VALUE anymore. That day is past. One tactic used by medical corporations in pushing bogus science is to use the same data for multiple studies. This gives the illusion of wide support when stupid people think they can weigh evidence by counting papers. Anyways, the substantial “weight” of the evidence is in PJ favors. If you weigh the paper that is.
But I like your approach Tom P. Let’s weigh the books on Climategate versus the books defending Jones. Opps look like the weight of the evidence is in our favor.
Please go invest in a real argument. Or hack up some R again, piker.
Roger Knights (08:44:51) :
“..that the present retreat of Himalayan glaciers is somehow a result of rising air temperatures.”
Yes, Roger, and additionally, I would like to mention that there is nothing that can be concluded about the retreat of Himalayan glaciers other than it’s on its way out of the last Ice Age.
Glacier Gate, remember?
Raina’s report, the one the Love Guru called voodo Science;
(Its large);
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
@Sean Parke: Buildup around the lake has certainly occurred over that time period. Virtually nothing in 1850. Now half to 3/4 of the lake is bordered by residential. It’s a big lake (10,000 acres). I don’t know if it has accelerted since 1960. I think most of the buildup predates that.