SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #21-2010 (July 10, 2010)
By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Climategate: The Muir-Russell report: Some initial comments
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
In contrast to the Oxburgh report, the Muir-Russell (MR) report is quite substantive (160 pp, incl 8 appendices) and very professionally produced. MR members held some dozen meetings (presumably in Edinburgh), conducted many interviews at UAE, and accepted some 100 submissions (all unpublished). [A very few of these came from recognizable skeptics; none from Douglass, Christy or Singer, although our work is referred to on pp 148-149 — as a threat to Jones?]
I have several major criticisms, mostly connected to the fact that the MR team had no in-house competence in the relevant science (atmospheric physics and meteorology). Prof Geoffrey Boulton is a geologist, Prof Peter Clarke is a particle physicist, and Professor James Norton seems to be a general expert on engineering and business. Sir Muir Russell himself once got a degree in natural philosophy (physics). As far as one can tell, they consulted only supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), i.e., supporters of the IPCC.
As a result, they could not really judge whether Phil Jones (head of the Climate Research Unit at UEA) manipulated the post-1980 temperature data, both by selection of weather stations and by applying certain corrections to individual records. Had they spoken to Joe D’Aleo or to Anthony Watts, they might have gotten a different slant on the CRU’s handling of station data.
The MR Team concentrates much of the report on the ‘hockey stick,’ and on whether the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years (as claimed by Michael Mann and also by IPCC-3, relying mainly on tree-ring data,). But that issue is really irrelevant and a distraction from the main question (which is never addressed): is the warming of the past 50 years mainly anthropogenic (as claimed by IPCC-4) or natural (as asserted by NIPCC and some other IPCC critics)?
In pursuing the question, the Team must realize that the CRU deals only with land data (covering, imperfectly, only 30% of the Earth’s surface) and that sea-surface temperatures (SST) are really more important. Weather stations and trees tend to be land-based.
Also, the Team never bothers to inquire about the atmospheric temperature record from satellites, the only high-quality and truly global record in existence. They seem unaware of the substantial disparity between satellites and the CRU record.
In defense of the MR Team, they consider science to be outside of their charter and within the remit of the Oxburgh team. [See Item 5 on p.10] (Having seen the Oxburgh report, however, some might consider this a joke.) Yet the Team feels empowered to speak with authority about conclusions that depend on climate science. In fact, none of the investigations so far have had a serious look at the crucial science issues.
As a result, the Team doesn’t seem to realize [p.23 and 32] that “hide the decline” and “Mike’s [Michael Mann] ‘trick” refers to a cover-up. Mann’s 1000-yr temperature record (from proxies) suddenly stops at 1980 – not because there are no suitable post-1980 proxy data (as Mann has claimed in e-mails that responded to inquiries), but because they do not show the dramatic temperature rise of Jones’ thermometer data.
This problem recurs again with Fig 6.2 (which is Fig 3.1 from IPCC-4) and involves misuse of the ‘smoothing’ procedure, i.e., replacing annual temperatures with a ‘running average’ of (usually) five years and sometimes longer. [I discussed the matter in some detail in my Science Editorial 8-09 (2-28-2009)]. As can be seen by inspection, there is little rise in temperature between 1980 and 1996, until the ‘super-El-Nino’ of 1998 (which has nothing to do with GH gases or AGW). The satellite record shows more clearly the absence of any significant temperature rise between 1979 and 1997.
It is ironic then that the real post-1980 global temperatures may be closer to the proxy record than to the thermometer record. We will find out when we learn what data Michael Mann discarded.
In this connection, the legal demand for all of Mann’s data by Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli assumes additional significance. Based on his own statements, one suspects that Jones has deleted some crucial e-mails. It is likely that these may be discovered among Mann’s e-mails, now held by the University of Virginia. It might put a new light on the whole Climategate affair.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Sully:
Welcome to the light of day. I’ve always contended that most of us don’t need an anonym and being anonymous makes it too easy to engage in uncivil activities. Before I started posting under my real name there were a few occasions when I had to eat some crow and ask moderators to remove postings that on sober reflection were not things I’d want associated with my name, if I’d given it…. and there really is no such thing as anonymity on the internet.
Ditch the Norwegian Rat thing… John Sully is a fine handle. I wouldn’t invite a rat to share my pizza, but if John Sully finds himself in New England I’d be happy to show him the real meaning of pizza and exchange talking points over a pitcher of beer.
Nice article. I particularly enjoyed Dr. Singers interpretation of ‘hide the decline’. The continued discussing of the testimony seen by the committee as though it weren’t done with intent is difficult to read but so far that’s all that people have done. I suppose it makes it sound reasonable to those not familiar with what really happened, but to imagine that a committee would be so incompetent as to accidentally not hear commentary from the complainant is a big leap.
The divergence problem is not a problem, its actually empirical evidence showing the hockey stick has a very poor relationship with temperature. An then to claim that the reason it doesn’t work is anthropogenic brings tears to the eyes every time, it just so hilarious!!!
I think it would help if people reminded themselves that the use of tree rings as temperature proxies is far from sound. I recall many discussions on this site regarding correlations between tree ring widths and all the many factors contributing to tree growth (rainfall, sunlight, ground water, CO2, temperature, local soil conditions, ground slope, density of trees etc). Whatever the merits of splicing data from different sources, the use of tree rings solely as temperature proxies is a more fundamental problem, notwithstanding the sample size and regional cherry picking.
Dave Stephens says:
Is there ANY way to download NON-HOMOGENIZED data?
Yes. GHCN data, as on the file v2.mean, say, is taken directly from the CLIMAT forms lodged by the world met authorities. That is what these people used to compare with HADcrut3.
DonK31 says:
One can not replicate work without the exact same data as was used the first time. Jones said that it was thrown away at the time of the move into the new facilities and was not recoverable.
No. Jones could not lose the original data, which was held by the various met offices. He only hasn’t kept his copy. Later the GHCN project collected them independently and placed them on the data based which the Nuir people used. They did the same sort of calculations that I and other bloggers did, and confirmed that the results corresponded to the CRU indices.
The value of Jones pioneering work was not in the calculation but in the original collection, and the concept. The fact that the same data, collected from the same sources and processed in the same way gives the same answer, is very good evidence that Jones got it right.
The delusion here is the belief that the indefensible is defensible.
===================
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 11, 2010 at 12:11 am
An important thing to realize is that the (manufactured) controversy over the Yamal series has nothing to do with the divergence problem or with the TAR figure.
“nothing to do with” .. Except in the sense of removing the divergence problem and the need to “hide the decline” in any future report.
To me, and maybe I’m too much of a purist, in this instance, I don’t really care what the data says. I don’t really care if they are ultimately proven correct. The basic issue is with integrity. You don’t have to look at a single data point to see that these scientists have no integrity. By their own admission in their own emails they have manipulated, cherry picked, and gerrymandered the data and produced biased studies consistent with their underlying views and agenda. This is not to mention their denial of data to independent resarchers and their efforts to suppress other research papers that were contrary to their viewpoint.
Again, don’t get caught up in the technical details, the data and the ultimate outcomes. Pay attention to the behavior, the lack of integrity and the anti-science that is so clearly demonstrated in the emails. That is what is so damning.
What is all this discussion about? The Midieval Warm Period was real, the Little Ice Age was real, Mann was wrong. End of discussion!
DonK31 says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:51 am
If all this can be done in 2 days, then a whole lot of time and money was wasted on Professor Jones’ previous work.
And. if that’s true would it not be possible to prosecute Professor Jones for obtaining money by deception?
The summary of the reviews are:
– the temperature data was available at the NCDC anyway; Move along, nothing to see here;
– the hide the decline and the hockey sticks have been generally accepted in the community although there could potentially be some uncertainties associated with it. Move along, nothing to see here.
– We didn’t look at the science or the suppression of contrary papers or read the emails anyway; so we We moved along and Didn’t see anything here.
———-
My comment is no one is taking CRU’s and Mann’s hockey sticks seriously anymore. There will be more attempts in the future, perhaps in IPCC AR5, to ressurect the idea that todays temperature are higher than the natural oscillations in the recent climate past but at least they won’t be trying to suppress all natural cycles in the climate anymore. The Medieval Warm Period (Climate Anomaly) and the Little Ice Age are back to stay (although they will try to say they were small events).
Second, the smoking gun is what the NCDC has done to the Raw temperature records. We know there is a certain increase (0.3C to 0.425C) in the Adjusted versions but just how Raw are the Raw records. The reviews and CRU have been hiding behind the data held by the NCDC since Climategate started and it is time we opened their books. Tom Karl and Tom Peterson, in charge of the NCDC temperature records, are also prominent Climategate emailers. Are the Adjustments justified? Have any “adjustments” been done to the Raw data? There is enough unusual patterns in how the records have changed through time to question if there really has been an increase of 0.7C in temperatures over the past 150 years.
The value of Jones pioneering work was not in the calculation but in the original collection, and the concept.
Manipulating temperature data now constitutes “pioneering work”? Only in the minds of AGW true believers, who have seen their pet theory fall into disrepute.
At least Jones, in his BBC interview, had the courage to admit that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Now, with La Nina arriving, the PDO in its negative phase, and the sun in a continuing slumber, global temperatures are headed towards a long-term decline. Another Dalton Minimum or, perhaps, Maunder Grand Minimum, may be on the way. In any event, all of the silly scare stories about runaway man-made global warming will undoubtedly make great cocktail party conversation a decade from now.
The theory of CO2-induced global warming is headed the way of Piltdown Man.
Amino Acids in Meteorites,
Thanks for the YouTube links to Anthony’s and D’Aleo’s presentations. It’s a good update on where the data collection program is to date. And their preliminary analyses are intriguing, to say the least.
IIRC, in an interview, Anthony said that when he was a weather newbie in, I think, the ’60’s, he had to handle a Stevenson Screen and he was annoyed by the amount of whitewash that came off during the handling. Later, it got him wondering about how Stevenson Screen coatings would affect temperature accuracy.
I first started lurking on Anthony’s blog when he began his Stevenson Screen experiment in which he had installed, if I recall, 3 Screens – one with whitewash, one with latex paint and one left unpainted. That was really interesting in and of itself. But I was blown away (as was he) when he started posting screen shots of active temperature sensor locations and how the data base for the stations were adjusted. Those stationings and their adjustments made no sense then and I don’t believe they do now. And they just keep coming.
Here is where I think Anthony has done one of his great services – he’s providing real-world photos of thermometer sites and temperature graphs that a high school kid can look at and say “you can’t be serious that this is valid or accurate information” and then laugh his head off. These are visuals that will never go away.
[NASA itself has accepted that their sites are bogus by installing about 50 new stations, properly sited and about equidistant from each other across the U.S. in the last couple years (I think in tacit acceptance of Anthony’s critiques) which, according to NASA, will give us a reliable database in about 30 years. Okay, I’m willing to wait ’til then for definitive temperature trend results for the U.S. to base subsequent climate policy on.]
Here’s why we skeptics are running with the bits in our mouths. We’re questioning EVERYTHING about the temperature record: the accuracy of data collection, appropriateness of station coverage, data adjustments, magnitude of temperature changes, temperature trend slopes, technical reliability, consistency between satellite and ground records, impact of natural and human influences, station dropout effects, UHI, station positioning and movement effects, human error, statistical significance and error bands, trust in the objectivity of the data managers, ARGO data processing and inclusion in the temperature record, Climategate data-release and -distribution obstructionism, raw versus homogenized data releases, etc. And that’s just the basic intellectual skirmish. Don’t even start on mitigation vs. adaptation costs, benefits and politics. So to re-establish credibility, the AGW’ers need to aquiesce to a collective demand that EVERY temperature station be re-visited here and across the world, the data re-evaluated, adjustments made by a consensus of assessments by pro-and anti-AGW scientists, the level of reliability of the station itself, elimination of the station if found unsuitalbe, and the remaining data re-compiled with FULL revelation of the statistical uncertainties and error bars. THEN start proposing climate policies and present them for discussion and possible adoption by each nation’s citizens in accordance with the dictates of each nation’s political system.
The point in the MR report that all data are publicly available, and that code can be written in 2 days to generate results similar to those of the CRU can easily be checked.
Has anybody asked MR for the references to the data that were used, and a copy of the code that his enquiry generated? Answers to these questions will settle most of the questions posted: is the data “raw” or “adjusted”? Is the code correct and sensible? etc.
It does not need the Freedom of Information Act, and surely such a request could not be denied?
How did ‘Phil Jones manipulated the data’ morph into ‘Michael Mann manipulated the data’?
Perhaps this is another case of Mann Derangement Syndrome, where climate ‘skeptics’ keep getting obsessed over Michael Mann (who doesn’t even work at CRU)?
— frank
Jerry from Boston,
Well said. All this talk about data. We have no real idea about the raw temp data until each station is audited and understood. It seems to me that NASA’s new stations are useful almost immediately if they are near old stations. All this said, I don’t think it is wise to keep producing CO2 at the current rate indefinately. We need a economical, sane and practical plan for the production of pollution free energy for the benefit of those who will follow us. It would be nice to leave them something but a pile of debt and economic ruin.
Mr. Sully, now that you’re out of the shadows…if you care to receive one, I’ll be happy to send you a freebie copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion for your amusment and edification.
REPLY: Actually, I’d like one, since we can’t yet buy it in the United States. But if we can, I’ll do a book review here. – Anthony
“Richard Garnache says:
July 11, 2010 at 6:27 am
What is all this discussion about? The Midieval Warm Period was real, the Little Ice Age was real, Mann was wrong. End of discussion!”‘
But Richard, the MWP and LIC were just local events, not world wide.
and using tree rings and ice cores are excellent examples of world wide temperatures, they obviously are not local.
Now isn’t that odd?
Rodger Longstaff,
It is right in the report. They got it from GHCN and NCAR and ran it with both raw and homogenized data.
I’ll give you a freebie, too, Anthony. It’s the least I can do for all you’ve done in the name of science. And you know, I always try to do the least I can do. Ha!
I have plenty of stock on hand.
Send an email to ken@stairwaypress.com and I’ll take care of you.
For those who want to support this outreach program, click my link and buy a copy. I’m sorry, was that cheezy?
Grant, it’s one of the great victories of the activist progressives: to classify CO2 as a pollutant. You have to give them credit for pulling off that brilliant piece of work….getting people to buy into an idea that is the opposite of true.
Latitude says;
But Richard, the MWP and LIC were just local events, not world wide.
You jest, of course.
Ref – Ken Coffman says:
July 11, 2010 at 10:36 am
“Grant, it’s one of the great victories of the activist progressives: to classify CO2 as a pollutant. You have to give them credit for pulling off that brilliant piece of work….getting people to buy into an idea that is the opposite of true.”
__________________________
Indeed, it’s THE GREATEST PONZI SCHEME of all time… so far. Maddof was a piker compared to Mann & Co. I’ll bet a penny –though I won’t be around to see it happen– that the next two generations will have one that’s twice a big as AGW. People never change, and –as P.T. Barnum used to say– “there’s a sucker born every minute“.
then
yet I thought there was raw data missing after CRU’s move. Is all the data and code freely available now?
Rattus misses the important question “Is the code … sensible?” We know there are overwhelming doubts about the codes.
To “The RAT”
Be aware of the fate of the Intelligentsia after “the revolution” it is not pretty:
“..In the years immediately following their accession to power in 1917, the Bolsheviks took measures to prevent challenges to their new regime, beginning with eliminating political opposition….In 1919, he began mass arrests of professors and scientists who had been Kadets, and deported Kadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Nationalists. The Bolshevik leadership sought rapidly to purge Russia of past leaders in order to build the future on a clean slate….” http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/attack.html
Pleas note the Bolsheviks were financed by the Warburgs, the same banking family that gave the USA the Federal reserve and the world the World Bank.
But I do not expect you to even bother to read what your future fate will be if your “great social plan” is enacted. The Intelligentsia always thinks it will be different “this time” I just wish you would all move to China if you and leave the rest of us alone instead of dragging us into your future hell.