He really makes a laughingstock of himself in this feckless piece of disinformation about the Yamal affair. It reeks of desperation. He even manages to use my objections to NCDC using an incomplete, non quality controlled preliminary dataset posted on the web solely to keep volunteers updated of the survey status and for no other purpose, as an “unpublished” work suitable for scientific consumption. NCDC went ahead and used it for a paper anyway, despite my objections. Somehow in the bizarre hockey team entrenched mindset of Gavin, this is comparable to the team’s objections to releasing FOI sought data on Yamal. Note to Gavin – my file was already public!
You’d think a scientist could get this simple fact right.
Gavin writes:
UK FOI legislation (quite sensibly) specifically exempts unpublished work from release provided the results are being prepared for publication. So McIntyre’s appeals have tried to insinuate that no such publication is in progress (which is false) or that the public interest in knowing about a regional tree ring reconstruction from an obscure part of Siberia trumps the obvious interest that academics have in being able to work on projects exclusively prior to publication. This is a hard sell, unless of course one greatly exaggerates the importance of a single proxy record – but who would do that? (Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.). Note that premature public access to unpublished work is something that many people (including Anthony Watts) feel quite strongly about.
Worse, McIntyre has claimed in his appeal that the length of time since the Briffa et al (2008) paper implies that the regional Yamal reconstruction has been suppressed for nefarious motives. But I find it a little rich that the instigator of a multitude of FOI requests, appeals, inquiries, appeals about inquires, FOIs about appeals, inquiries into FOI appeals etc. is now using the CRU’s lack of productivity as a reason to support more FOI releases. This is actually quite funny.
Furthermore, McIntyre is using the fact that Briffa and colleagues responded online to his last deceptive claims about Yamal, to claim that all Yamal-related info must now be placed in the public domain (including, as mentioned above, unpublished reconstructions being prepared for a paper). How this will encourage scientists to be open to real-time discussions with critics is a little puzzling. Mention some partial analysis online, and be hit immediately with a FOI for the rest…?
Our favorite Yamal tracking historian, Andrew Montford explodes Gavins claims at Bishop Hill.
Montford writes:
Gavin Schmidt has issued the official response to the recent excitement over Yamal. I have to say, even on a brief glance through it is a wild piece of writing.
Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:
McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.
As McIntyre’s article is quite clear that the Yamal regional chronology dates back only to 2006 it can of course not be relevant to the 2000 paper. This is something that he makes quite clear in his article.
One of the purposes of Briffa (2000) was clearly to demonstrate the effect of RCS methodology on the Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002 dataset. I have no objection to CRU claiming this “purpose” for Briffa (2000).
But, by 2008, this was no longer their “purpose”. Indeed, one doubts whether the editors of Phil Trans B would have accepted a 2008 paper with such a mundane purpose. The actual “purpose” of Briffa et al 2008 is stated quite clearly and was entirely different: it introduced and discussed “regional” chronologies.
Schmidt is therefore engaging in some serious disinformation. Unfortunately, this is not the only occasion. For example, he points out that McIntyre had long ago received “the data” from the Russians who originally collated it.
Full story here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/11/realclimate-on-yamal.html
Gavin should know by now that he can’t get away with this sort of stuff. I wonder what Phil Jones will do next week.
Is Gavin Schmidt bad at sums?
The IPCC confirms that all the warming since 1850 is ~ 0.7°C and asserts that this warming is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions. A trivial check sum can be done by translating percentages of the ~33 °C Greenhouse Effect into °C for each active constituent.
The abstract of the NASA GISS paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf states:
“Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect
……….. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity.”
Gavin A. Schmidt, Reto A. Ruedy, Ron L. Miller, and Andy A. Lacis
Transposition of the above values to °C of greenhouse effect is as follows:
Water Vapour and Clouds ~75% ~24.75°C
Other Greenhouse Gases ~25% ~8.25°C
Other non H2O non CO2 GHGs gases (calculated according to CDIAC) ~1.2% ~0.41°C
Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~7.84°C
Natural CO2 280 ppmv (100% emissions since 1850) x 280/390 ~5.63°C
Man-made CO2 (full increase since 1850 Man-made 110 ppmv ) x 110/390 ~2.21°C
As the reported and acknowledged temperature increase since 1850 is known to be only ~0.7°C in total, how can this result be possible. Thus at 2.21 °C past Anthropogenic Global Warming is exaggerated to be more than three times the acknowledged temperature rise since 1850.
Clearly neither Gavin Schmidt nor his peer reviewing colleagues carried out this trivial check sum before publication. Had they done so, they would have seen that these give a gross exaggeration of Man-made influence on temperature even from past CO2 emissions.
All other published proportional data start out with water vapour and clouds accounting for ~95% of the greenhouse effect.
Nonetheless those promoting the alarmist “Cause” expect the Western world to revolutionise its economies based on this type of assertion and calculation. This is the type of trivial due diligence that seems never to be undertaken in the Alarmist Global warming camp. Instead radical and vastly expensive policies are formulated to address Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming. Inaccurate assertions of this nature have been widely accepted by governments.
These are the climate experts that World Governments via the UN IPCC depend upon and on which the Western world is basing its self-destructive and costly policy decisions.
Frank K.
In regards to proper documentation and other issues dealing with ModelE code.
When basic programming practices are not followed I stop reading code and usually call it what it is, sanitize my hands if I handled a paper listing, and try to forget what I just put my eyes and cranial cavity content through.
Over the decades I’ve seen some interesting output from such code, none of it good.
Stephen Rasey says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“What I think is currently going on this political spring [1] will give new meaning to The Immaculate Deception. The term comes from American Football where in 1978, the Oakland Raiders made several fumbles in the last 12 seconds of the game, moving the ball forward each time until they recovered it in the end zone winning the game. ”
Yes, remember it well. However, for those unfamiliar with this incident, the rules were then changed to prevent this from happening again. The NFL does not like those who find loop holes in the rules and use them for their advantage. AGWers on the other hand……..
@edmh – your points are very well taken. Lovely calculation and quite correct.
@Latimer Alder – I think the data is stored safely where it cannot be retreived easily. The motivation is that one day, on the chance that there will be a new interpretation possible, it will reappeare if it supports the Cause and the Team needs it. It will be a ‘miracle’.
We can tell teh data was crunched and omitted because that is how the hockey stick was generated in the first place. It was not a mathematical slip by Mann, it is that he thinks he is so clevah no one can keep up. Briffa is less clevah and got caught more easily. Gavin is the least clevah and the most likely to have stopped calculating once he got ‘support’ without doing the trivial calculation to see what the CO2 influence might actually be, close as he was to be answer.
Has anyone looked at Briffa’s publication record since 2009? Is it my imagination that he appears to have given up on trees as temperature proxies? If so, how come?
My favorite part of Gavin’s Yamal(y) Yawning rant:
“McIntyre expressed great exasperation at this point, which is odd because in email 1548, McIntyre is quoted (from Sep 26, 2009 (and note the divergence in post URL and actual title)):”
”To which Rashit Hanterminov responds:”
”Thus at the time McIntyre was haranguing Briffa and Osborn, McIntyre had actually had the raw Yamal data for over 2 years (again, unmentioned on Climate Audit), and he had had them for over 5 years when he declared that he had finally got them in 2009 (immediately prior to his accusations (again false) against Briffa of inappropriate selection of trees in his Yamal chronology).”
So, even though there’s a million and one reasons why Rashit might either think he sent something that Steve doesn’t think he received (like everything except the ones they couldn’t find*) or be mistaken, or lying; we’re supposed to believe that proves Steve’s incompetence or maliciousness?
Yet ignore, from the same e-mail train Gavin cites, from Tom to Rashit:
“We must show that the selection of trees was not made to support global warming. The YAD data shows an increase in tree growth and we need to show that all the trees from which we could have selected also show this increase.”
So, after the fact they “must” show they didn’t cherry pick because they didn’t explore this possibility before publication and either 1) they’ll be exposed as incompetents, 2) they’ll be exposed as co-conspirators in the greatest scientific hoax ever, 3) they’ll damage the cause bringing down the wrath of Mann, or 4) they’ll damage the cause they truly believe in.
Personally, I like #4 but any way you slice it the e-mail train exposes them as advocates trying to support a theory rather than objective scientists. It’s classic zealous prosecutor syndrome.
(*) – Same email train:
”Dear Tom, attached are yad series. Unfortunately after rather long search I didn’t find data for two trees” (LOL!, and this is what we’re going to base policy on?)
http://climategate2011.blogspot.com/2012/01/1548txt.html
They wonder why don’t we trust climate scientists. Indeed, why would we? It’d be like the defendant trusting the prosecutor.
Disparate, or desperate. Pick one.
If you’re going to emulate Frost, show some respect!
The thumbnail picture says it all. This isn’t about the scientific evidence, Dr. Schmidt, or any of that. It is about the economic alarmism surrounding potential solutions to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, which the National Academy of Science concludes is necessary, by the way. An observer would be rightly be skeptical of such a picture and statement on a blog, and rather lend more credence with a published scientist that is in general agreement with scientific academies/groups.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
otter17,
Please quit linking to the complete nonsense emitted by the NAS. They are not credible. The NAS claims that global temperatures will increase by up to 5.8ºC by the end of the century. There is no real world evidence supporting that wild-eyed conjecture, and bowing down to the ridiculous authority of that ethically challenged and compromised organization makes your arguments equally ridiculous.
Smokey says:
May 13, 2012 at 7:06 am
“… There is no real world evidence supporting that wild-eyed conjecture, and bowing down to the ridiculous authority of that ethically challenged and compromised organization makes your arguments equally ridiculous.”
_____________________________
The NAS has more credibility than you, me, or a blog. They are not alone in their assessment, either. There are equivalent organizations throughout the world, such as the Royal Society, AAAS, AGU, and others that share similar sentiments. Six degrees is a possibility by end of century, depending on human emissions, human land use, and natural feedbacks. It isn’t the middle road scenario, but near the higher end of the scale from a variety of estimates.
In any case, these groups average out the biases of any one given hypothesis and painstakingly analyze the body of peer reviewed literature on temperature rise and effects. This same scientific process of peer review that builds on further research and analysis has been going on for centuries now. The NAS has made a statement on a credible threat (based on the wide array of research surveyed), and a potential means for rationally addressing that threat.
What specific evidence do you have that the NAS is ethically challenged or compromised? Are the other scientific groups, such as AAAS, AGU, other national academies, etc, also conspiring in some way? I am quite skeptical that the NAS would screw up in such a big way, while individual bloggers, or you have all the correct answers. I used to think the premise of AGW was a bit far fetched when I first learned about it in high school, but since then the weight of the evidence has swayed me, not necessarily authority.
otter17 says:
“…the weight of the evidence has swayed me, not necessarily authority.”
There is no evidence for AGW. There are computer models. There is radiative physics. But there is no evidence for AGW.
AGW may or may not exist. But there is no evidence. Your problem is not understanding what the scientific definition of ‘evidence’ is. So what has “swayed” you is your belief system.
Smokey says:
May 13, 2012 at 9:32 am
“AGW may or may not exist. But there is no evidence. Your problem is not understanding what the scientific definition of ‘evidence’ is. So what has “swayed” you is your belief system.”
___________________
You don’t know about my belief system, and on the flip side your belief system could very well lead you down the path to ignore all evidence pointing towards a need to reduce emissions, while embracing any source that indicates nothing needs to be done.
Furthermore, I press the issue concerning your accusation that the NAS and other scientific organizations are ethically challenged/compromised. Evidence there? How did they all screw up, while you have the truth?
Smokey said “what has “swayed” you is your belief system.”
Damn right. And the same belief system has swayed the AGU (who’s ethics committee chairman was Peter Gleick, the NAS, the AAAS, The CRU, the IPCC, Dr. Suzuki, David Appell, Phil Plait, Andy Revkin, The Guardian, etc, etc,. Otter and the others forget what a rush they get when they believe they’re saving the world.
With people like that, you can get whole organizations, claiming science, but in reality acting as echo chambers, forfeiting the scientific method, presuming one paper clearing a publication hurdle “settles” that bit of science forever, then building to more and more alarming conclusions in subsequent papers, as if they were correct. The science of global warming is truly an astounding bit of psychology and anthropology.
You still do not understand the definition of “evidence”. Evidence is raw data. There is no evidence showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 causes Y temperature increase. Therefore, AGW is a conjecture.
Mickey Reno says:
May 13, 2012 at 10:13 am
“The science of global warming is truly an astounding bit of psychology and anthropology.”
__________________
You lay out an accusation that all these groups are biased, and a rough outline why you think so, but you still provide no evidence that they are indeed on the whole making things up in the name of “saving the world”. For the NAS, Department of Defense, AMU, etc, this isn’t about saving the world, but about risk mitigation. Common sense ways to mitigate a risk are what most of the rational professionals in science, national security, and energy.talk about.
The accusation game can work both ways. I accuse you of economic alarmism, thus blinding your ability to recognize the vast majority of evidence for a human element to global temperature rise now and in the future, while embracing any view, no matter how credible the source, that discredits a human component. I say that your irrational fear of economic harm and a policy foul-up is the cause. I made that accusation in an above comment, but I don’t stand by it since I don’t know you.
Smokey says:
May 13, 2012 at 10:20 am
“You still do not understand the definition of “evidence”. Evidence is raw data. There is no evidence showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 causes Y temperature increase. Therefore, AGW is a conjecture.”
________________
Well, without a control planet it is impossible to make a 100% clear relationship. This goes similarly with other branches of science. A substantial amount of research can lead to a strong position, but never a proof (which is what you seem to be getting at, correct me if wrong). This is what the science has done and will continue to do, and many assert that there is enough research to produce a strong enough conclusion that the risk ought to be mitigated. Nothing irrational or lacking in evidence about the NAS conclusion. In order to reverse this, there are a LOT of peer reviewed papers you need to be writing (not citing blog posts). In the mean time, the current state of the science points towards the NAS conclusion. I’m always willing to allow the state of the science to change, but still sticking with what the body of science tells me now. I would love it if AGW didn’t exist, btw; one fewer issue to solve.
I’m still waiting on your evidence showing that the majority of the scientific bodies throughout the world are ethically challenged and biased. I am skeptical that you have anything that would convince a majority of people.
otter17,
It does not require a “control planet” to show that there is no evidence for AGW. If you have any such testable, empirical evidence for AGW, per the scientific method, produce it.
Smokey says:
May 13, 2012 at 11:07 am
otter17,
“It does not require a “control planet” to show that there is no evidence for AGW.”
__________________
That isn’t what I was implying. What I said was that it would require a control planet to meet the standards you were apparently asking for. The testable, empirical evidence lies in “experiments” that were conducted in the past, by natural processes. There is evidence that CO2 was among the drivers of climate in the past, and likely the cause for certain extinction events such as the end-Permian and PETM (except now the CO2 is increasing a couple orders of magnitude faster). Furthermore, there are well-established papers such as Caillon, et al, 2003 that indicate that interglacial periods are another “experiment” with CO2. Also, see Dr. Alley’s presentations on Youtube to AGU and other audiences about “CO2: A Control Knob” or “Earth: the Operator’s Manual”. Both are pretty good. So, not controlled experiments, sure, but the best one can do without a control planet. And this is just a small piece of the larger science; you would have to do your own digging for more.
Alley:
Caillon, et al:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
Still waiting on evidence that NAS is somehow compromised. Let me know if you come up empty. No big deal, either way.
(Oh yes: YAD06 – the most important tree in the world, The global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie etc.)
Oh right, it’s not about saving mankind, it’s an industry now is it? Very telling use of language there…
Schmidt would make an awful teacher:
“A bad teacher will aim at imposing his opinion, and turning out a set of pupils all of whom will give the same definite answer on a doubtful point”
Well, maybe you don’t consider the output of a GCM to be “making things up.” I do.
I don’t conflate arguments about sensible arguments about conservation, efficiency, the precautionary principle or risk aversion with scientific corruption and mass bias / groupthink or mass delusion. Nor do I conflate scientific corruption, bad though it may be, with de facto doomsday occultism. But I’m pretty sure in the presence of the former, the latter is enabled, and becomes much more likely.
As for individual and group corruption/bias, I leave it as an exercise for the you to find examples of alleged scientists behaving as political activists, claiming correlations are causal, claiming they already know enough, acting corruptly against the scientic method, behaving intolerantly toward criticism, engaging in ad hominem and other logical fallicies. If you look, you’ll find many. And if you’re honest, you’ll find bias corruption overarching the entire endeavor called climate science, climate science journals, and professional associations like AGU, AAAS, etc.
If you get that far, you should have noticed a few cases among the population of mere bias corrupted scientists, of even more radical scientists, who join with similarly corrupt political allies (leftist journalists, environmental radicals, Marxist collectivists) who push mere scientific corruption into full-on doomsday occultism. Look for dishonesty (false death threats, for example), telling terminology such as “the Cause,” and direct statements such as “we’re EFFING saving the EFFING world” (and almost everything said by Dr.David Suzuki). If you’ve been paying attention, you should have already seen their arguments, pretending that their own dodgy science, making future predictions that also get the preferred status of never being falsified, somehow supports without question the notion that radical public policy mandates are needed RIGHT NOW OR IT WILL BE TOO LATE!
Mickey Reno says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:50 am
“Well, maybe you don’t consider the output of a GCM to be “making things up.” I do.”
………….
___________________________
Again, a lot of opinion and subjective views of the science/scientists there. Where is there specific evidence that a majority of scientific organizations, including the NAS, are corrupted? Why wouldn’t scientists leave these organizations in large numbers if they were indeed corrupt? What you describe sounds more like a conspiracy theory. I am skeptical of someone that puts out blanket accusations.
Turning the tables, is there not at least a possibility that your own strongly held views may be biasing your distaste for these scientists or “radical policies”? Could it not be possible that the science is correct, but you do not want to believe it since it conflicts with your views on these policies?
It could be possible that the science is correct, assuming you mean AGW is caused by c02 emissions. However, the thermal range of c02 is 15 microns at its peak. Once enough radiation has been delayed at the temperature that corresponds to that 15 microns width has been saturated then it can no longer absorb any more radiation, and its saturation window is closed. 15 microns corresponds to -89C, by wein’s displacement law, which is very cold. That effectively means that there is no radiation between earth surface and the higher levels of the lower troposphere that c02 can capture. When it does, since the saturation window closes, more c02 does not mean more radiation capture – in the same way that doubling the amount of factor 10 sunblock won’t make it a factor 20 sunblock -because the saturation windows are closed at 10.
The 1st 100ppm of c02 does all the radiation capture of radiation in the atmosphere at this extreme temperature, which is around 8% of radiation. More c02 doesn’t increase the bandwidth.
I can’t think of another analogy, apart from that of sunblocker that casts the AGW thesis in serious doubt – perhaps the boiling point of water. No matter for how long you heat a pot of water, it won’t pass the 100C boiling point at ideal conditions. More heat does not mean increased boiling point.
in the case of the thermal properties of c02, quite the opposite is the case. Where c02 intercepts heat, which is where it is extemely cold, subzero temperatures cannot elevate the earth surface temperature. temperatures at -89C cannot rebound back to force any temperature increase above itself, and temperatures at -89C are very rare indeed at the surface
above was a reply to otter17:
May 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
@- P Wilson
Your claim that raising CO2 has minimal effect on temperatures because the absorption band is saturated was discredited in the mid 60s when Plass et al calculated what actually happens to radiant energy at different wavelengths as it transits through the atmosphere. The work was funded primarily by the DoF in relation to heat seeking missile detection.
It involves nothing more complex than basic calculus, although rather a LOT of calculus to describe the behavior for all wavelengths over the full vertical height of the troposphere with the changing pressure and temperature, but it has been verified by direct measurement of outgoing and downwelling spectra.
I would suggest reading the ‘CO2, an insignificant trace gas’ series of posts at Science of Doom (link at top right of this site) for a layman’s explanation, or any textbook on radiative transfer if you want to avoid making silly assertions that the science falsified decades ago.