Climategate: Why it matters -- The scandal we see and the scandal we don't

[FarCenter]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Analysis - Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really?

The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far more troubling questions.

Perhaps the real scandal is the dependence of media and politicians on their academics' work - an ask-no-questions approach that saw them surrender much of their power, and ultimately authority. This doesn't absolve the CRU crew of the charges, but might put it into a better context.

After a week of scrutiny of the emails, attention is now turning to the programming source code. Three quarters of the material released is the work of the academics, much of which they had jealously guarded. This includes a version of the world's most cited and respected temperature record - HADCRUT - and a number of surveys which featured prominently in the reports of the UN's climate change panel, the IPCC. The actors here shaped the UN reports, and ultimately - because no politician dare contradict the 'science' - shaped global policy.

The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work. (You’ll note that one of these is far less serious than the others.)

<SNIP>

CRU was founded in 1972 by the 'Father of Climatology', former Met Office meteorologist Hubert Lamb. Until around 1980, solar modulation was believed to be the driving factor in climatic variation. A not unreasonable idea, you might think, since our energy (unless you live by a volcano vent) is derived from the sun. Without a better understanding of the sun, climatology may be reasonably be called "speculative meteorology".

But CRU's increasing influence, according to its own history, stemmed from politicians taking an interest. "The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time. This and other meetings eventually led to the setting up of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, within the Met Office," the CRU notes.

Lamb (who died in 1997), however remained sceptical of the greenhouse gas hypothesis to the end.

[notesdev]

1. Incoming scandal deniers

Warmer evangelists at six o'clock approaching... regurgitating their television-fed programming, shouting "fire!" on a crowded planet in unwitting service to their corporate carbon-trading masters... mass logical fallacy assault coming this way, shields up!

[endless october]

2. it matters, but it doesn't mean GW isn't happening.

i can't imagine how the scientists who participated are keeping their jobs. i would have been fired in a second for similar behavior.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Can anyone give me an example of a legitimately bad e-mail?

And not something that's totally legitimate but taken out of context?

No?

OK, then.

[Taverner]

4. Wow - once again we're agreeing

What's up with that? I want my money back! I paid for an argument!

[GMA]

6. Just read the whole article.

The emails are nothing compared to the code.

We all deeply want what is best for this planet! Using flawed science (in its infancy, no less) as though it were magic, and then promoting blind devotion to that "magic", ain't it.

[Viking12]

8. First it was "The e-mails show a vast conspiracy...."

But they didn't.

Now it's "The code!!!, the code1!!! it's hugh and series"

But it's not.

For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Post an example.

[FarCenter]

11. Can anyone give me an explanation of where the Medieval Warm Period went?

See the figures on page 2 of The Register article.

They appear to have fudged away what used to be called the Medieval Optimum.

And they added "corrections" to the post 1930 temperatures to get the "hockey stick" of recent temperatures.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. And?

Can you post anything that suggests their statistical analysis is flawed, let alone cooked?

[FarCenter]

19. See the email at the link

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/those-cru-emails-2.html

[Viking12]

14. Can you explain how the MWP was created in the first place?

Did you know that Lamb sketched the diagram on a napkin based on anecdotal evidence?

Lamb (1995) describes a passage from Landnámabók, a book written in Iceland in the year 1125, that catalogs the settlement of Iceland. It was recorded that Thorkel Farserk, a cousin of Erik the Red who founded the colony, having no boat at hand, swam out across a fiord to fetch a sheep from the island of Hvalsey. The distance was over two miles. Lamb (1995) cites a medical endurance expert who established 10oC (50oF) as the coolest possible water temperature for a very strong man to survive swimming that distance. Given that the normal water temperature at present for that fiord in August is 6oF, the story suggests a much warmer climate than present. Lamb (1995) and Tkachuck (1983) both refer to old Norse burial depths being much greater in the past than today which suggests the permafrost was deeper (warmer climate) than at present. Bryson (1977) refers to ship reports that mention Blaserk and Hvitserk. These are Norwegian words meaning "black shirt" and "white shirt," respectively, that were used as a navigational reference for Greenland. Blaserk and Hvitserk referred to the same mountain but Blaserk was not mentioned after the early 1300's.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html

Now there's some precise science for you.

[FarCenter]

16. The tree ring data at your link show the Medeival Warm Period

As do some of the other graphs. It is not just anecdotal.

[Viking12]

17. It is not "just" anecdotal. It is also geographical isolated to the North Atlantic region

Get a clue. There are dozens of independent reconstructions of the last millennium with basically the same results -- the MWP was grossly overestimated by the early studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[FarCenter]

20. but just "likely" that modern is warmer than MWP.

From: Tim Osborn <[e-mail]>
To: Michael Mann <[e-mail]>, Phil Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Wed Sep 30 17:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <[e-mail]>

At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination
of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say
this Tim?).

Mike,
yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results
leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's
attached.
I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3
out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly
in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern
results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100.
Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary
information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we
have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science
agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!
:-)).
But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is
100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than MWP.
So, yes, it should be possible to find some subsets of data where MWP and Modern are
comparable and similarly for some seasons and regions. And as you've pointed out before,
if any season/region is comparable (or even has MWP>Modern) then it will probably be the
northern high latitudes in summer time (I think you published on this, suggesting that
combination of orbital forcing, land-use change and sulphate aerosols could cause this for
that season/region, is that right?).
So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B
(2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive.
Cheers
Tim

[Viking12]

21. Umm, yeah. So? That's exactly what the IPCC says.

RTFR. Do think this this e-mail reveals something sinister?

[Johonny]

18. It appears like pointless desperate distraction

If you can't win with peer reviewed publications, attack non-peer reviewed e-mails. If the emails contain actual evidence of actual misconduct and more important cover up of errors and falsified data, no doubt we will see a massive wave of new counter GW papers being submitted attacking these new points. I'm not holding my breath for this to occur. Really this fake scandal makes the general DU rounds daily it seems like these days. Pretty surprising for what appears to be a non-story atm.

[Viking12]

5. Yawn. Is this boring spam over yet?

http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14960149

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html

[GMA]

7. Yeah, I know--some yawning myself. But

you're still going back to the emails, and they're just the tip of the iceberg. So to speak.

[Viking12]

9. Give it up.

[GMA]

15. lol! Let's do that!

Whoops, just kidding. Too important.

[20score]

13. Those evil scientists picking on poor Exxon and the rest! Why, I'm with you!

Lets grab every bit of useless minutia to keep on polluting! I say, science doesn't work if I don't like the conclusions!