The scientific finding that does not settle the climate-change debate
S. Fred Singer Letter to WashPost Oct 25, 2011**
Before you write off Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as cynical diehards, deniers, idiots, or whatever, [WashPost Oct 24] consider this:
Why are you surprised by the results of the Berkeley Climate Project? They used data from the same weather stations as the Climategate people, but reported that one-third showed cooling — not warming.
They covered the same land area – less than 30% of the Earth’s surface – with recording stations that are poorly distributed, mainly in US and Western Europe. They state that 70% of US stations are badly sited and don’t meet the standards set by government; the rest of the world is likely worse.
Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that the climate models, run on super-computers, all show that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface. What does this tell you?
And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don’t show any global warming since 1940!
The Berkeley results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the Hockeystick authors have never published their temperature results after 1978. The reason for hiding them? It’s likely that their proxy data show no warming either.
One last word: In their scientific paper, submitted for peer review, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. However, their research paper comments: “The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.” I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.
********************************************************************
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is co-author of Climate Change Reconsidered [2009 and 2011] and of Unstoppable Global Warming [2007]
I thought Watts wrote that sceptics didn’t dispute that the climate was warming, but then Singer writes “atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites”
This is simply not true. Satellite data for the mid-troposphere shows a clear warming trend since 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
mindert
BEST published a diagram using only stations with a record length of 70 years.
There is a copy of it at http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/kansas-temperature-trend-updatemuller-confirms-there-is-a-problem/
The very large proportion of opposite trends and their even distribution across the USA is remarkable.
I am very encouraged by the BEST findings. Whether you like or don’t like the view put by the four papers, the fact is that the data and code are all public. Let the debate begin – its a really good thing.
As to Anthony’s view about the PR spin ahead of peer review – I think the blog sphere can provide good peer review. I am not talking about the noise from the blogs. I am talking about many more qualified scientists, rather than a few chosen for formal peer review, can comment and tease out what is happening.
Then there are thousands of technically qualified folk – engineers, physicists, statisticians etc, who while not climate scientists, can contribute to the analsis in some part.
OK – some judgement is needed to tease out the informed comment from the rest – but it can work.
BEST is not an appropriate acronym for this work, WORST is.
Warmists
Obfuscating
Real
Surface
Temperatures
SteveE says:
Steve I’d like to think that Peer Review would be a corrective process of such integrity that we could blindly accept. However when you look at the quality and content of some of the “peer reviewed” papers that get analysed here and the sloppy nature of many of those papers, its a stretch too far to expect blind acceptance on the face value of peer review only.
Not to mention the gatekeeping where certain papers get a golden run through peer (PAL?) review with astounding errors in them and, others that get nit picked to oblivion where they challenge the so called “orthodoxy”
I think we will wait and see on the BEST review of ….BEST.. by the blogosphere!
“Peers” are supposed to be neutral and more opposition than Pals. How many egregiously and fatally flawed papers have we seen that had positive “peer” reviews?
Not having read any of the BEST papers – is there any correlation attempted or produced between the 70% of badly sited stations and the temperature results they show? Are they neutral with one third of them showing a drop in temperature and two thirds an increase ? or is there a clear picture of them predominantly showing results which are a showing a bias in one direction or the other?
It may be just a coincidence that 66% of stations record a warming trend and 70% of stations are recorded as badly sited. I would be interested to know if anyone can tell me more………
Thanks
Mat says:
October 26, 2011 at 12:49 am
“Ok guys – beyond a joke now, you’re going to have to let this one go – BEST was on your side!”
The only thing skeptical about Muller was that he denounced MBH98 in a lecture; and MBH98 has been so deconstructed that it’s simply indefensible anyway today (even though the BBC and other public media, e.g. in Germany, still use it occasionally to frighten the chicken; it looks so nice with its blue handle and red hot blade. And one must admit, it was a great graphic to “communicate the science”. From a marketing perspective, great brand-building; they turned the disadvantage of it – the splicing of two data sources – into an appealing visual symbol by the right choice of colors.).
Very early on, Marc Morano has also uncovered that Muller is the front for a geo-engineering outfit, the Novim group. Now who would they sell their stuff to when there’s no climate crisis.
Muller’s alleged skepticism was as flakey as it gets.
Steve C says:
October 26, 2011 at 2:23 am
…………………………..As a better quotesmith than me once said, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can’t make her think”.
—————–
Something must have been lost in the translation. I believe the original quote was:
You can lead a rose to horticulture but you can’t make it pink.
Dr. Singer,
Thank you for standing up to speak against the multitude of incorrect science statements reported by the media wrt the BEST papers that are currently in peer review. You have my gratitude, the future looks positive.
All it takes is one honest man to turn the tide. You have inspired me to stand up as well.
I especially liked your statement,
I am doing some independent research on GCM (models) wrt logical errors in them from circular reasoning, so all comments on the models are appreciated.
John
Fred Singer: “And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. THEY DON’T SHOW ANY GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1940!”
*****************************************************************************************************
That’s odd. Mere days ago, bloggers and participants on skeptics blogs suddenly proclaimed the they “knew all along” the earth was warming, as confirmed by the BEST, NASA, HadCRU, and NOAA reconstruction. And that their “only”complaint was attribution of warming to human sources. “Only” was the word of choice of many prominent skeptics.
Now were back to skeptics cheering on Mr. Singer, who proclaims there hasn’t been any warming?
These sudden movements of goal posts over a few days time are inconsistent. Both of these skeptics claims can’t possibly be true simultaneously.
“The Berkeley results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. ”
Muller’s comments in a commondreams article about the hockey: stick
“In their scientific paper, submitted for peer review, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project.”
I did not see this mentioned in any of the mainstream media “news” reports that I read.
For the warmers claiming victory, may I remind you that this is the crux of the debate.
Mr. Bradford:
“Yet hard-core AGW types at RealClimate, and the Deltoids, are trashing the BEST results with a display of meanness they usually reserve for “deniers” such as “James Watt”.”
I imagine you are serious about the “James Watt” usage from the sources cited. Personally I’m amazed that someone with scientific credentials in “heat transfer” realm has risen out of the grave to make commentary on the AGW issue!
peter stone says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:08 am
Fred Singer: “And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. THEY DON’T SHOW ANY GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1940!”
*****************************************************************************************************
That’s odd. Mere days ago, bloggers and participants on skeptics blogs suddenly proclaimed the they “knew all along” the earth was warming, as confirmed by the BEST, NASA, HadCRU, and NOAA reconstruction. And that their “only”complaint was attribution of warming to human sources. “Only” was the word of choice of many prominent skeptics.
Now were back to skeptics cheering on Mr. Singer, who proclaims there hasn’t been any warming?
These sudden movements of goal posts over a few days time are inconsistent. Both of these skeptics claims can’t possibly be true simultaneously.
//// end quote
Peter Stone; are you serious ?
THE DATA reports no warming.
here is the key bit
quote
And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called “proxies”: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. THEY DON’T SHOW ANY GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1940!”
/end quote
All I see is a scientist reporting what (some) data appears to show.
Did you see Prof Singer make a claim that the Earth was not warming; or did he do what I expect all scientists to do – report what the data says REGARDLESS of how it fits your theory ???
Not only have you misunderstood what is being said; but you have tried to take it out of context.
This collection of data appears to be the very data that was NOT included in the assorted papers as it disagreed with the GCM outputs.
Now please tell; who is moving goal posts ? Who is hiding data ? Who is showing data ?
I am sure one of the real scientists will be along shortly to let us know what papers failed to extend their data sets to include this most inconvenient piece of information
Now tell me; which is worse – reporting data even though it goes against your stated interpretation of other datassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
kramer says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:10 am
“The Berkeley results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. ”
Muller’s comments in a commondreams article about the hockey: stick
“A more sardonic view was taken by prominent Bay Area physicist Richard Muller of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who served as a peer reviewer for the academy’s report. In 2004, he publicly criticized the Mann team’s work, calling it “an artifact of poor mathematics … when applied to the (temperature records of the) last millennium,” he recalled in an e-mail Thursday.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0623-03.htm”
So what about you, kramer? Do you believe that the Hockey Stick has been definitively shown to be “an artifact of poor mathematics”?
And do Progressives still believe in CO2 = CAGW and its “green” energy drive?
SteveE says:
So when this study is published in a peer review then you’ll accept it?
The more relevant question for you, Steve, is do you still believe in the pre-Enlightenment “mainstream” Climate Science methodological jibe that peer review insures the publication of the “given truth”?
I am one of those skeptics who considers that it is probable that the world has warmed during the course of the last century but question (i) the exxtent of such warming (ii) the cause of such warming, and (iii) the significance of such warming (in particu;ar whether any such warming is a matter of concern, or whether on balance it is beneficial).
That said, I consider the qulatity of data (or perhaps more to the point lack of reliable qualative and quantative data) to be such and the errors associated with it to means that no one can say with better than 70% certainty that it is warmer today than it was in the 1930s/40s or even the late 1800s. The deficiency of data is such that even that may be over stating the mark.
The BEST re-interpretation of the available data does little to add any certainty to this important area of the debate, and in my opinion does not sufficiently detail the error bars with which any extrapolatiuon and interpretation of the data must be viewed. The lack of quality of the data and the failure to appreciate the extent of error margins is one of the key problems underpinning the poor understanding of climate science.
Thanks Dr. Singer, you write a clear prose, shine a light.
oopps my :
peter_dtm says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:30 am
got mangled somewhere ..
it should have ended :
Now tell me; which is worse – reporting data even though it goes against your stated interpretation of other data
or hiding it because it inconveniently disagrees with your hypothesis and models
In a sane world Dr Singer you would be asked to submit a full op-ed piece.
@peter_dtm
October 26, 2011 at 6:30 am :
What if all we were asking is that that the data be complete and accurate, and the data be made public so it can be checked? Does that sound like a reasonable place to put the goal posts?
Prof Singer writes:
“Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons…”
I would like to point out that this is within the measures of the last ten years. It would be good if Prof Singer would clarify that this is the period he’s referring to, assuming that is his assertion. Alarmists are taking this quote and are saying “See, they deny ALL warming!”.
peter stone says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:08 am
These sudden movements of goal posts over a few days time are inconsistent. Both of these skeptics claims [warming/no warming] can’t possibly be true simultaneously.
Of course they can. There has been both warming and no warming, then cooling, occurring in the climate since it began, depending on the time period considered. Since the beginning of the holocene, for example, there have been several periods of more warming than the current, possibly waning or reversing, period – possibly now waning or reversing since there’s been no atmospheric warming over at least the past 15 yrs., no increase in ocean heat content over a period of some years, and a more recent decreasing to reversing rate of what was a very low rate of sea level rise to begin with.
So admitting the existence of the current warming since the end of the “Little Ice Age” following the “Medieval Warm Period”, which the Hockey Stick tried to erase, is not inconsistent with questioning the duration, degree, and course of the current warming period, as well as its relevance to the CO2 = CAGW “science” – which itself hasn’t produced even one correct or “true” relevant prediction yet.
What is inconsistent, therefore, are the practices of ipcc-style Climate Science as compared with the practice of real scientific method and principle science.
JPeden says:
October 26, 2011 at 7:58 am
——————
JPeden,
A well constructed overview.
Can I use it?
John