Over the past decade, we have seen many examples of what would be categorized as” team science” when it comes to suppressing ideas that are considered inconvenient or contrary to belief systems in climate science. Over at the blog Bishop Hill, one such example was illustrated today by an academic who describes himself as a statistician, who attracted the attention of “team science” by simply doing a straightforward and honest statistical analysis on ice core data.
He and his students did an analysis on Vostok ice core data, eliminated noise and seasonal variation, did the usual tests for statistical significance, noted what they had discovered and presented it to”a noted society”. The response of the society was shocking to say the least, so much so that this statistician considered leaving academia. Here are some excerpts:
During the analysis, we noticed many interesting features, especially during the present interglacial, which seems to have a ‘seasonality’. We estimated the seasonality and proceeded to remove it, using a technique I teach in their course, in order to find the underlying trend.
Having done this, we noted that not only was there underlying further seasonality and cycles, but that firstly the temperature according to the proxy record was considerably below its maximum and also secondly that the temperature was rapidly decreasing.
Next we looked at the carbon dioxide content. The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.
These findings were presented at a small conference at one of the major learned societies.
…
Several months afterwards, the society’s ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.
Climate skeptics are often described by the proponents of global warming as being” anti-– science”. Yet, here we have probably the most blatant example of anti-science behavior on display.
You can read the entire article at the Bishop Hill blog here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/16/on-entering-the-climate-arena.html
It is well worth your time.
It is unfortunate though, that this academic has chosen not to identify himself and to speak up to his colleagues about this treatment and behavior. Doing so is the only way to push back against this sort of censorship of science.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 16, 2014 at 8:55 am
I third the suggestion to make F. H. Haynie’s excellent study a blog post or series thereof, with a little editing for grammar, punctuation, etc, but not length. I’ll copy these paragraphs on the 11-year cycle blog post comments in hopes of eliciting useful discussion. IMO this curve-fitting exercise has captured important signals in the data:
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
“The vapor pressure of carbon dioxide is a function of the thermodynamics of sea water
containing carbonate ions, dissolved carbonates, their solids, as well as dissolved carbon
dioxide. Decaying organic matter is another source of carbon dioxide in sea water. There is
a lot more of it in the oceans than there is on land. The sea becomes a source when SST
rises and a sink when it falls. The rate of emission or absorption depends on the rate and
direction of temperature change. That rate is constantly changing with space and time. A
good example of this is illustrated by the four SST data sets of the Nino regions across the
tropical Pacific. The temperature rises as the water goes from East to West across the
Pacific. The rise is linear and the rate of rise varies seasonally and is not constant from year
to year. The seasonal variation is associated with the northern Pacific circulation. Besides
the seasonal variation there are two other statistically significant cycles. One at 11 years is
stronger than one at 176 years. Nearly all the rates are positive and vary by an order of
magnitude within six months. Thus, the tropics are nearly always a source of carbon
dioxide and the strength of that source changes by an order of magnitude within a relatively
short time.”
“The warmest part of the Pacific is around the western equator. I calculated SST for 160
East using the Nino rate of warming data. Least squares regressions on these data yield four
statistically significant natural cycles. The annual cycles are approximated by a triangle wave
form with one harmonic (cos(x)+cos(3x)/9). The three other cycles are sine waves with
lengths of 11.11, 39.05, and 79.01 years. The regression accounts for nearly 60% of the
variability.”
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
June 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm
You don’t need an entire cycle of a wave or other curve to determine its mathematical characteristics. The orbits of the planets can be inferred from observing small sections of their paths around the sun, for example.
I wonder if it’s all a joke or what: of course actual temperature has been surpassed many times in the past, but guess what? In the past CO2 followed temperature, and the CO2/temperature ratio was lower than today, meaning that at that time natural causes raised the temperature (and CO2 as a consequence), now the temperature increased is due by higher CO2 (higher than the past CO2 concentration at the same temperature), and the CO2 temperature ratio is obviously higher than during past times.
Recap: past hot climate–>induced high CO2 actual high CO2—>induces hot climate.
Giuliano says:
Recap: past hot climate–>induced high CO2 actual high CO2—>induces hot climate.
The first part has much supporting evidence. But you assume too much when you say that high CO2 induces a hot climate.
On time scales from years out to hundreds of millennia, all available evidence shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no evidence for the reverse.
This anonymous person should publish the work that made everyone made so that the rest of the skeptic community can benefit from it.
Without that step, it seems worthless (and hard to believe without evidence) to gripe about being left out.
mi·lo: n., An early-growing, usually drought-resistant grain sorghum, especially Sorghum bicolor, resembling millet. Thus spake Free Online Dictionary.
richardscourtney says:
June 16, 2014 at 7:35 am
———————————————
I see now that my thoughts continue to lead me in the right direction, which is the reason why I have continued on this path for these last 6 years. I do truly appreciate the teaching that I receive here.
The ice core data can never achieve the resolution that the real time data of co2 changes in or out of the atmosphere is now showing us. The Mauna Loa and global data for co2 are showing a steady yearly rise, which keeps in pace with the rise of global temps in the Modern Warm Period. So co2 gradually increases on a yearly basis during a warming period, but the co2 in the ice core data is then too diffuse to show that level of detail. The year 1977 is the start of an increased rate of growth. That is also right at the beginning of the warming period, 1976/77. Twenty three of the last 37 years since 1977 have had a smaller increase in co2 than in 1977. Yet the volume of human emitted co2 per year has increased by a large factor since 1977, while land use changes since 1977 are also exponentially larger. If we were truly 100% responsible for the rise in atmospheric co2, then the yearly rate of increase should currently be in the range of 3 or 5 ppm/year. The highest recorded increases of 2.84/global and 2.93/ML were during the peak of the 1998 El Nino. The second highest rate is at the peak in 1988. Without the warming from 1976/77, the co2 content could be around 360 ppm or less.
dbstealey says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:43 am
——————————————
You called taxpayers “hardbitten”. That is a serious offense under UN rules, so SciAm felt obligated to remove the offending remark.
/sarc
Back in the 1990s shortly while I still considered AGW a reasonable hypothesis I was looking at a plot of the Vostok ice core data for CO2 and temperature (as a function of O18) and noticed that the latter seemed to visually lag the former. Using a t-square, ruler and right triangle, I concluded that there seemed to be a lag of several centuries. I inquired about this on a climate site (I forget which one) and was informed that yes, the temperature began to ascend before CO2, BUT then CO2 took over. That seemed circular and opened up the issue of what STOPPED CO2 from turning the planet into Venus, especially since geological data indicated that CO2 had reached much higher levels in the past. The present levels are very near the lowest in the Phanerozoic. Inquiring about that problem resulted in being banned – apparently for asking awkward questions.
Giuliano says:
June 16, 2014 at 1:52 pm
I wonder if it’s all a joke or what: of course actual temperature has been surpassed many times in the past, but guess what? In the past CO2 followed temperature, and the CO2/temperature ratio was lower than today, meaning that at that time natural causes raised the temperature (and CO2 as a consequence), now the temperature increased is due by higher CO2 (higher than the past CO2 concentration at the same temperature), and the CO2 temperature ratio is obviously higher than during past times.
Recap: past hot climate–>induced high CO2 actual high CO2—>induces hot climate.
The current atmospheric CO2 levels are near the lowest in the last 600 my. See GEOCARB IV for detailed information. Likewise, the planetary climate is not “Hot” in any scientific or geological sense and is in fact in one of the coldest states since the “snow ball earth” period:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm.
There is no evidence to support the idea that anything about the current climate is remarkable other than being remarkably cold, and near the lower boundary for primary plant productivity. Over the Phanerozoic there is no strong correlation between temperature and CO2. There does appear to be a slight – repeat “slight” – correlation between extinction events and declines of atmospheric CO2, but again, the apparent sequencing suggests that the extinction likely caused the change in CO2 and not vice versa.
Nick Stokes wrote “But what seemed oddest is that none of the findings seem in the slightest bit controversial. ”
But the article started off…
“Over the past decade, we have seen many examples of what would be categorized as” team science” when it comes to suppressing ideas that are considered inconvenient or contrary to belief systems in climate science. Over at the blog Bishop Hill, one such example was illustrated today ”
So it was a story from the times when this information was being discovered. That makes it controversial indeed.
Also Nick wrote “We aren’t told anything that could be verified – eg what is the society, or the conference.”
And you’re right. But on the other hand the author said he wanted to remain anonymous and so knowing the society and especially the conference would identify the individual. There are many examples of suppression from the past. Climategate was particularly damning in that regard.
Most people will claim that new evidence will change their scientific opinion but I think reality is very far from that claim for some and it takes more than new evidence. It takes an ability to let go and not everyone can do that.
Bill! God no! Here is what you mix with chocolate: chocolate!
(and a glass of deliciously good red wine…2 glasses…oh hell 3 glasses!)
being slightly sceptical myself I believe that this story is at best a red herring and at worst an indication of a concerted attempt to trap and discredit the cause. not enough detail, an insignificant point without substance, they are setting us up in the hope that we jump on this issue so that (in some warped and incoherent way) they can show us to be …..I dont know what??…It just smells wrong to me be careful they are beginning to get desparate, wont be long befor Anthony finds a horses head in his bed……
I agree. Fred H Haynie worked for as an environmental scientist for the EPA before retirement. In addition to the content, he did a nice job with his presentation.
richardscourtney says:
June 16, 2014 at 7:35 am
fhhaynie:
Very many thanks for this link
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
that you provide in your post at June 16, 2014 at 6:36 am. […] I commend others to read it, too.
I agree. Outstanding work. Thank you.
The use of microwave ovens proves not that you’ve found a simpler way to do something, but rather, that you’ve given up.
It’s like religion. Only those believing and supporting the political decided UNFCCC, with one or more political agendas attached, are qualified to have an opinion?
Jimbo you are forgetting that this happened several years ago. By my estimation probably 5 – 10 years ago. Certainly it is nothing new NOW but back then it was earth shaking and would have been a bad dent in the foundation of so called climate science of the time. Now this is a well known thing that the skeptics regularly make a point of mentioning so yes now it is old hat. But 5 – 10 years ago it wasn’t.
I believe neither climatologists or statisticians, as both of them are clueless about processing a signal over time. Time has a causal relationship with the signal (can’t go backwards), and so it’s not just dumb two dimensional statistical regression. It’s harder than that. Signal processing is also a bandpass filter that limits what we can figure out at low and high frequencies because we don’t have an infinite series of infinitely small sample periods. Nyquist criteria applies on both sides of the band. One of the above links shows a mean-square analysis that clearly shows a phase shift. For gods sake just use a zero phase filter! At this point, without studying the data and the math in horrid detail, I’m not sure I even believe the 1000 year time lag in CO2. How much was processing phase delay due to running averages and other such nonsense?
If you don’t understand the above signal processing terms you aren’t qualified to do time-series analysis of any data whatsoever. This applies to both statisticians and every climatology paper I’ve ever read.
richardscourtney says:
June 16, 2014 at 7:35 am
Your article is the strongest evidence I have yet seen and it suggests a natural cause of the rise.
Except that the natural cause is not the oceans as Fred assumed, but the biosphere. That is the case as well as for the seasonal changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
as for the 2-3 years interannual variations:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
But the long term CO2 and d13C changes go in opposite direction compared to the short term variations: the oceans are the main pre-industrial cause of an increase of CO2 – without much change in d13C over a glacial-interglacial transition.
As in many cases: correlation is not causation. The correlation of the short term and long term variations are caused by different processes, where the short term variation is dominated by the biosphere and the long term variation is dominated by the oceans. The increase over the past 160 years is neither from the biosphere or the oceans, as any increase in temperature makes that the biosphere in general is getting a larger sink over a longer time frame and the oceans give a maximum of 17 ppmv/K increase, not 100+ ppmv for 0.7 K increase in temperature
goldminor says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:32 pm
You are looking at the rate of change, which is highly variable over a 2-3 years period. The cause is the influence of temperature and drought mainly on tropical vegetation.
The long term trend is not caused by vegetation, as increased CO2 (and temperature) increases the uptake of CO2 by land vegetation, mainly the NH extratropical forests. And not caused by the oceans as a small temperature increase has little effect on CO2 levels (historically ~8 ppmv/K)
The 160 years increase of CO2 is near entirely caused by human emissions, not by temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
TimTheToolMan says: June 16, 2014 at 3:35 pm
“So it was a story from the times when this information was being discovered. That makes it controversial indeed.”
Not true. Here’s the IPCC writing in AR3, 2001:
“From a detailed study of the last three glacial terminations in the Vostok ice core, Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming.”
and
<i."The early Holocene was generally warmer than the 20th century but the period of maximum warmth depends on the region considered."
F. H. Haynie’s observations about the widening variation in depletion index with latitude are very compelling. There aren’t many coal plant inside the Arctic circle.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for your post at June 17, 2014 at 12:04 am which comments on my post at June 16, 2014 at 7:35 am.
Balance is important when evidence is not conclusive. Again, thankyou.
Richard
This is a good example of the problem that faces us all.
Much of the conventional science strongly supports the sceptical case. Even the IPCC supports the sceptics in some areas, for example it has repeatedly stated that there is no evidence to link global warming with increases of extreme weather. The data from the very organisations that single-mindedly push AGW (e.g. NASA and the Met Office) clearly shows that there has been no global warming in this century.
And yet Obama can state, as if it were a matter of fact, that global warming/climate change is accelerating.
So here’s the problem: many responsible scientists and organisations simply suppress and ignore anything that is even remotely inconvenient for their cause. This case appears to be a typical example. He wasn’t sacked or attacked, he was simply ignored.
If only the alarmism is reported and all the inconvenient stuff is ignored, then people in general will end up with a very distorted view of the truth.
President Obama being a perfect example.
Chris
Ah the days of milo and innocence-
before the boogeymen came for the kiddies-