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.
Tom P,
You are missing the point. We are talking about historical temperatures, not what the models predict. The original paper referenced found that 6% of US locations have experienced later springs. So your point does not stand.
Any comments on the paper itself? It seems to have an impressive set of co-authors who have no reputation as AGW skeptics. Seems interesting, no?
Another big change for Lake Mendota has been the increase in agriculture in the watershed that drains into the lake. Lake is prone to algae and weed blooms, presumably due to agricultural run off.
Bill Parsons
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/
That’s actually an article about the original work by Aono/Amoto. Aono and Kazui have since published again but with much more data:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/MiyaharaHiroko08-d/AonoKazui07-Aug23-KyotoSpring.pdf
And Aono also studied effects of urban warming on the results here:
http://www.envi.osakafu-u.ac.jp/atmenv/aono/Aono1998.pdf
steven mosher (11:45:24) :
“Let’s weigh the books on Climategate versus the books defending Jones. Opps look like the weight of the evidence is in our favor.”
I was quantifying observations, not opinion, however well informed or otherwise. The quantification of opinion is sociology, not science.
HGI (12:23:38) :
“The original paper referenced found that 6% of US locations have experienced later springs. So your point does not stand.”
Actually, 5% later compared to 6% earlier, but it does show it’s possible to publish data reporting a proportion of later springs. I’ve little doubt that the other papers with “earlier spring” in the title didn’t find a uniform change to just earlier springs.
However, a large-scale trend towards later springs? There may be papers out there reporting this, but they’re not easy to find.
As to the paper itself, fig. 14 shows the significant areas of North America in terms of spring onset change for the period studied, with earlier springs along the west coast while later in the midwest. The changes are reported to be consistent with the seasonal temperature record. I have no reason to doubt their conclusions.
John F. Hultquist (23:24:36) : There is a quote that refers to the great eastern hardwood forest, namely, “A squirrel could travel from Maine to Texas without touching the ground.”
Oh, for the glorious pre-colonial days, when one could see the mega-flora which were so massive that they actually provided areas of continuous canopy over the width of the Mississippi River! Clearly, the loss of these legendary trees is a national tragedy.
I looked outside and saw Phil’s daughter, suddenly felt warm…must’ve been global warming.
Though they don’t seem to be nearly as independent as implied…further the things that are done to them are done by pretty intertwined groups of people.
I am thoroughly enjoying both the post by Indur (and the many thoughts being engendered) and the wide-ranging comments by everyone. It seems he has opened Pandora’s skeptical box. I cannot now respond in any degree like I’d like. I have to head out the door shortly.
But I’d like to respond anecdotally in a sense to Indur’s statement that pollution was decreasing even before legislation to reduce pollution. I got my start in engineering shortly after the Clean Air & Water Act of 1970 was implemented. I still recall the hollering from the manufacturers that it would make American industry non-competitive and be the ruin of American industry. At this point in time, with American industry in the shape it is, those warnings have some ring of truth to them.
My early years in engineering were with steel fabricators who were swamped with new projects – I worked on water and sewage treatment plants, huge industrial fans and gigundous ductwork for scrubbers, and many oxidizers/incinerators of varying kinds.
I grew up with coal furnaces in all the houses and apartment buildings, up until just about that time, the early 1970s. As I understand it, coal furnaces put out aerosols, which tend to cool the atmosphere. Looking at the timing of the 1940-1976 cooling trend which is now apparently attributed to the PDO (which I have been proudly trumpeting now for nearly a decade and glad to see it is getting its due credit), it occurs to me worth considering that this period corresponds to the Lend-Lease Act, the World-War II industrialization that was followed by the post-war boom. That boom essentially DID end right about the time the climate was changing to warming. And that was right when the scrubbers started having an effect on pollution – which means aerosols were diminishing.
Since aerosols tend to cool, removing them from the atmosphere should have had a net warming effect. The timing suggests that was the case. I am only suggesting, not coming to conclusions. A study would be needed to determine if this is empirically real or not.
As some corroboration for that overall scenario, one would think that the period before the war boom would be a time when aerosols were lower, since there was the Great Depression throughout the 1930s. Lower aerosols would imply higher temperatures. The 1930s – thanks to Steve McIntyre – are recognized now (mutedly and begrudgingly by the powers that be) as the warmest decade of the 20th century.
All of this points out that there really are a lot of elements that go into it all. I would not suggest that huge swings were man-made or human enhanced. But the timing is interesting. If I wasn’t so intimately involved with the anti-pollution industry I wouldn’t have this viewpoint. I’ve always been very proud to have taken part in cleaning up the air in the U.S. It always riled me that the AGW alarmists would so often use 1970 as a base and tell us it is so much warmer than then. I have always wondered what the climate trend would be if the Clean Air & Water Act had not been passed. Did we change things by betting rid of pollution? I’m damned glad our air is clean; that is my own bottom line. Our cities were freaking pig sties back then.
More later, possibly…
Regarding my statement that “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 [start] of spring in North America,” let me make the following points:
Firstly, it’s possible that satellite data may not pick up some subtle signs of spring that a ground based observer might.
Secondly, note that the satellite study is a recent one and it looks at data up to 2006. If the warming we have seen is due to a cyclical change in temperature, the more recent data in this paper may be from a period during which rising temperatures gave way to falling temperatures. Thus we may have gone from a period in which spring was advancing to one in which it is retreating. The Idsos website – http://www.CO2Science.org — reviewed a remote-sensing paper by Delbart et al. (2006) that looked at the onset of greening in the boreal regions. It found that spring advanced from 1982 to 1991, following which it fluctuated without any specific trend from 1992-1999 after which spring retreated, The overall trend from 1982 to 2004 was an advance in spring. Given that we know there are temperature cycles at regional levels. It behooves us (and Phil Jones) to wait a few decades before we jump to hasty conclusions.
BTW, I would welcome the earlier onset of spring not only this snowbound year, but every year. So I would not necessarily count earlier springs as an adverse impact.
Reference: Delbart, N., Le Toan, T., Kergoat, L. and Fedotova, V. 2006. Remote sensing of spring phenology in boreal regions: A free of snow-effect method using NOAA-AVHRR and SPOT-VGT data (1982-2004). Remote Sensing of Environment 101: 52-62.
Any enlightened appraisal of the the recent performance of both CRU and ‘British’ gov in continued media manipulation must acknowledge that the decades of ‘spin’ and subterfuge no longer wash with the majority of people. Despite the damning evidence against CO2, policies remain unchanged.
Meanwhile, as Scotland drives inexhorably towards 50% electricity from renewables by 2020 via predominantly wind-farms, funding and fabrication exploring off-shore/tidal ability is now practically at a standstill. Big one in ’08 was CO2 capture from coal combustion, buried within North Sea-a Scottish Government/BP initiative-kaiboshed under a blame-game of politics, oil business, and……..? All in the name of CO2 reduction. Costs so far???
Same as anywhere- the printed press will run once tack is found, followed by TV ‘global’ medium-hence IPCC, CRU, UEA, Met, etc,etc. The science is not settled-but key bear in mind, purse strings and direction are increasingly defined by government.
Keep up the good work.
Jones, CRU, GISS, NOAA, are the corrupt tools of increasingly desperate tyrants. Slick sellers of snake oil. Charlatans. The world is now aware that a small, insidious crew of self-appointed “elites” claim to steer the human race to its destiny. But the path it has taken is littered with gangland-style suppression of good science and good people. All to keep the corrupt cabal in power.
That is changing. With each new revelation the cabal veers closer to the time when it’s decrepit leaders will be uncloaked in the light of day. And then, as with any disturbing revelation, the tyrants will face the immutable forces of light – and their own miserable demise.
I was quantifying observations, not opinion, however well informed or otherwise. The quantification of opinion is sociology, not science.
Tom, your observations quantified two, two-word conjunction frequencies in the titles of papers using them. That’s not even sociology, or at least it didn’t used to be.
J.Peden (23:55:15) :
“…your observations quantified two, two-word conjunction frequencies in the titles of papers using them. That’s not even sociology, or at least it didn’t used to be.”
Little did I know when I searched the scientific literature to find published evidence I was indulging in some unknown (and I presume unscientific) practice.
Indur M. Goklany (19:24:36) :
“a remote-sensing paper by Delbart et al. (2006) that looked at the onset of greening in the boreal regions. It found that spring advanced from 1982 to 1991, following which it fluctuated without any specific trend from 1992-1999 after which spring retreated, The overall trend from 1982 to 2004 was an advance in spring.”
Here’s the plot of the spring onset from the paper:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7713/springonset.png
To infer anything other than a small and probably statistically insignificant advance in the onset of spring is to grossly over-analyse this data.
Tom P (02:02:51) :
No one is “overanalyzing” anything. The whole point of this post was to note that there are multiple reasons why spring might have advanced other than high temps, asuming it has advanced at all.
Little did I know when I searched the scientific literature to find published evidence I was indulging in some unknown (and I presume unscientific) practice.
Now you do know, Tom. At least rain dances are somewhat artistic.
With regard to phenology, in the UK we have something called the UK Phenology Network http://www.naturescalendar.org.uk/ which monitors a range of spring events with the help of the general public. They use 2001 as the spring benchmark, as that year saw average monthly Central England Temperatures (CET) from January to June consistently very close to the 30-year average (1961-90).
Generally speaking, whilst most spring events (such as migrant bird arrival, native bird nest building and budburst got progressively earlier from the years 2001 to 2007, since 2008 the timing of these spring events seem to be slowly reverting back to their average 2001 timings due to the colder springs. Most native species seem to have had no problem adapting to the milder springs, however this years harsh winter (coldest in 30 years) has undoubtedly led to the mortality of a large number of wild birds (data gathered from the RSPBs Great Garden Birdwatch should provide clear evidence of this decline).
One thing I can’t rap my head around is if as the IPPC claims there are thousands and thousands of scientists studying global warming how come only one man had (and lost) the raw data. Did they all lose their data or is everybody ignoring the question of how could they be studying global warming if none of them have the required data? Why have I not heard this question before? Does this mean that every supposed fact about global warming came from one man?
~John
Upon proof reading I’m a little embarrassed with my spelling and I know it’s IPCC not IPPC. ……John…
I’m with Veronica
1. Is there any untouched, raw station data on-line?
2. If so, where is it?
3. What process exactly was used to “homogenise” it.