Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[D H]

Evo asked for a specific link to the data requested in the FOIA requests, Turbo.

Please find a link that specifically contains Briffa's tree ring data. Please find a link that specifically contains the raw data that underlie CRU's analyses.

 

[Evo]

Have you looked? Here it is: Land Stations used by the Climatic Research Unit within CRUTEM3; and the file itself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt.

Cheers -- sylas

This link has been posted before, but here it goes again. There is a mountain of data available in many, many forms, AND there are codes from the researchers who try to make sense of them. The anti-AGW people should take advantage of public resources to make their case.

Edit: deleted link to biased blog

turbo, specific data was requested, not any data. Saying "look there is lots of data, what are you complaining about" isn't an answer.

 

[Sorry!]

You are seriously claiming that the specifc data requested under the FOIA is already out there? Please back that statement up by posting the specific data requested and the data available so we caqn see that you are makinbg a true statement. Thanks, we'll be waiting for your post.

Smoke and mirrors. This isn't going to fly.

Evo the problem isn't exactly getting climate data to use and make a model of. (Because this is available everywhere) The skeptics I am pretty sure want to see what data CRU used exactly and what they did to it. This was discarded (Far before climate research was the 'big' thing... I'm pretty sure it was dumped somewhere around 1980?)
Anyways, Astronuc specifically asked about the station numbers I was responding to that you can find the stations used for any climate research as well as their ID numbers and location...

 

[sylas]

You are seriously claiming that the specifc data requested under the FOIA is already out there?

Of course not. Many of the FOI requests were denied, for reasons which have been explained ad infinitum. I really don't understand why people don't accept this. The particular data that is requested is not able to be released. It is not owned by CRU. They are not legally permitted to release it.

I was answering a very specific question about the identify of stations used and their WHO identifiers; not anything to do with the FOI requests.

Basically, GISS and CRU have adopted two different methods in their approach. CRU worked to get as much data as they possibly could, so as to get more coverage for regional resolution of the anomalies. GISS used the GHCN network, augmented with data from SCAR for the Antarctic, and used that. It's a smaller data set, but not subject to all the red tape that means FOI cannot get you the raw data used for CRU.

This is actually the best way to double check a result scientifically. You don't audit someone else's work; you repeat the work independently. And indeed, the CRU and GISS data is very closely aligned. There's a divergence mainly towards the poles, because of different ways of handling regions with sparse data; but if you do a comparison between 60N and 60S on the readily available data products, you get very close to the same thing.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

Evo the problem isn't exactly getting climate data to use and make a model of. (Because this is available everywhere) The skeptics I am pretty sure want to see what data CRU used exactly and what they did to it. This was discarded (Far before climate research was the 'big' thing... I'm pretty sure it was dumped somewhere around 1980?)
Anyways, Astronuc specifically asked about the station numbers I was responding to that you can find the stations used for any climate research as well as their ID numbers and location...

That's the point, the data requested was "dumped" it is not "available". For anyone to claim that the data requested is available online is either confused or is being disengenious. Since the e-mails discussing the data were more recent, I doubt it was hidden before it was requested. And I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday either. I'd stake my life on them having that data.

I have to agree with an earlier suggestion, if they have no data to back up what they've presented, then their data should be disregarded. This is supposed to be science, "oh we don't have any data to support what we've put out there, but trust us anyway".

 

[Sorry!]

That's the point, the data requested was "dumped" it is not "available". For anyone to claim that the data requested is available online is either confused or is being disengenious. Since the e-mails discussing the data were more recent, I doubt it was hidden before it was requested. And I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday either. I'd stake my life on them having that data.

I have to agree with an earlier suggestion, if they have no data to back up what they've presented, then their data should be disregarded. This is supposed to be science, "oh we don't have any data to support what we've put out there, but trust us anyway".

Well Astronuc never asked for any specific data like your making it. He asked specifically for station information which the CRU uses. Sylas posted that and it is available for everyone else to get at for any organization.

The thing is as sylas posted that even if they do have the information they can't release it anyways it's not theirs to do that.

I do not understand why the skeptics don't go through all the trouble that the CRU had to go through to get their massive amounts of data in the first place?

As well, yes the data was dumped if ever in 1980... (I'm pretty sure that's what I read atleast)

 

[Astronuc]

Have you looked? Here it is: Land Stations used by the Climatic Research Unit within CRUTEM3; and the file itself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/crustnsused.txt.

Cheers -- sylas

That's a start. Now for each of those 4138 stations, don't they have a folder or dataset that they can say here - here's the data, and here's how we used it? I mean, somewhere they had datafiles for each station - whether they got them on floppy or used ftp.

I mean they could invite whomever wants to question the data to visit CRU and do an audit.

I see that one station is in my neighborhood, but apparently to get the records will cost about $70 US. I'm curious about trends because locally the news occassionally reports record highs or above average for our area as well as below average. As far as I know, there is at least three data sets for local temperatures - because the locations might have changed.

I could get the data now from NOAA/NCDC, but I have no idea if that is the same dataset used by CRU. And even if it is, I'd have no idea how they used it, unless I get some disclosure from CRU how they used the data.

It boggles my mind that any group of scientists engaged in work that uses historic data doesn't preserve the data - if that's what actually has happened. I haven't followed what emails claim whatever. I just read the snippets presented here.

 

[Sorry!]

That's a start. Now for each of those 4138 stations, don't they have a folder or dataset that they can say here - here's the data, and here's how we used it?

I mean they could invite whomever wants to question the data to visit CRU and do an audit.

I see that one station is in my neighborhood, but apparently to get the records will cost about $70 US. I'm curious about trends because locally the news occassionally reports record highs or above average for our area as well as below average. As far as I know, there is at least three data sets for local temperatures - because the locations might have changed.

That's exactly the problem.

You can look for the data which other cliamte research centers use though if we look for say the first station listed Jan Mayan 70.9N 8.7W we get:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.634010010003.1.1/station.txt

(This is all data combined... you can go back to the search and change which data you want to look for the data here is from the GHCN)
If you look for the history of this station it has moved I believe 4 times (Which is why CRU has adjusted the data)

 

[sylas]

There's been a lot of discussion about alleged misconduct surrounding the lack of availability of data for weather stations used in anomaly reconstructions. It may help to see something more about the politics involved in working with this data.

Different countries have their own meteorological authorities which collect and maintain weather information. In many cases, these organizations are required to be "revenue-neutral" as far as possible. That is, they are expected to recover the costs involved in collecting the weather data by sharing the cost with anyone who wishes to use the data they maintain.

The data is used by a lot more than only climate scientists or study of global climate. It can be valuable to any organization which can benefit from tracking things like temperature or rainfall in particular locations. Many commercial enterprises can use this information for planning of various kinds.

Frequently, but by no means automatically, scientists are given permission to use some of this data in research, usually without cost, but under agreements of non-disclosure. The GHCN network is a collection of weather stations around the world for which this does not apply, and in this case the data is freely available. If scientists want to use more data from other more restricted stations, they have to jump through various hoops to get access.

Scientists usually have an interest in making as much data as freely available as possible. There are all kinds of bodies working to encourage a wider sharing of information.

Recently there was an interesting step forwards in this direction. The Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices (ETCCDI) is a group that has an interest in climate extremes. In a series of workshops they negotiated with a number of countries around the world for a public release of data, not as the raw station data, but as a set of indicies, which are an abstraction that still allows useful climate data to be extracted without putting at risk the valuable localized information that has the main commercial value for the participating bodies.

There's an open access paper on this effort, which helps show up some of the issues involved with gaining access to international meteorological data. It is:

• Thomas C. Peterson and Michael J. Manton (2008) http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2501.1" , in BAMS 89(9) Sept 2008, pp 1266–1271

The data itself, arranged into zip files from each of the participating countries, can be seen here: http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/ETCCDI/data.shtml . From the description: this is a global land-based climate extremes dataset produced through the coordination of the ETCCDMI. It comprises of 27 indices of temperature and precipitation computed from daily station data using the RClimDex software.

If anyone wants to AUDIT this, they have to get the daily station data somehow and run the software, and compare with the available data. Auditing like this has a place, but it is not actually something that has a high priority. The demands for audits of data, and for free access to all the required data to carry this out, are... odd. If people don't trust the dataproduct, then the usual scientific thing to do is go ahead and calculate your own. Or, if you prefer, you can do an audit on the equivalent GISS product, which uses all open source code and freely available data.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[sylas]

That's a start. Now for each of those 4138 stations, don't they have a folder or dataset that they can say here - here's the data, and here's how we used it? I mean, somewhere they had datafiles for each station - whether they got them on floppy or used ftp.

They do have station data as a large combined file, and there are steps in progress to make it generally available. The reason it is not available right away now is because they don't actually own it; but are using it with permission and under a large number of agreements of non-disclosure.

I mean they could invite whomever wants to question the data to visit CRU and do an audit.

I think there might be a legal problem with that. They can calculate it all for themselves, and they do, and they make the data product freely available. But they cannot simply let anyone else have access to the underlying data for individual stations.

I see that one station is in my neighborhood, but apparently to get the records will cost about $70 US. I'm curious about trends because locally the news occassionally reports record highs or above average for our area as well as below average. As far as I know, there is at least three data sets for local temperatures - because the locations might have changed.

I could get the data now from NOAA/NCDC, but I have no idea if that is the same dataset used by CRU. And even if it is, I'd have no idea how they used it, unless I get some disclosure from CRU how they used the data.

It will be the same data if you can get it from NCDC. If you don't trust them and demand the right to go in and audit all the files and check that it is the same data; sorry. You don't actually have that right.

You could demand the data by FOI... but getting it from NOAA/NCDC might be easier, and that in itself would mitigate against your being granted the FOI request.

If you can tell me the station, there is actually a fair chance I can give it to you myself from my own PC; including the station histories. I play around with this stuff, or used to. I've got about 1.5 Gbytes of climate data, both raw and in various stages of processing, all lying around on my laptop. It's not well organized, and I have a bunch of programs of my own I have written to play around with it. I could probably give you some code but I might be embarrassed, it is not 6-sigma. However, it has been enough for me to calculate some anomalies myself, for the continental USA for example, just to compare with what NASA gets.

It boggles my mind that any group of scientists engaged in work that uses historic data doesn't preserve the data - if that's what actually has happened. I haven't followed what emails claim whatever. I just read the snippets presented here.

Well, they haven't kept exactly whatever was provided to them from individual bodies. I gather what they have done is digitize and put it all in a common format and merge a few cases where stations over lap of something of that nature. Not a great deal of processing, I think. And in the end they have a nice big database of all the daily weather data; I think. I haven't seen it, of course. They never need to go back to the original disparate sources, and it would be extraordinarily expensive to do so, for no real benefit that I can see. Apparently some of the records from various national bodies was lost of disposed of or whatever. No-one uses it anymore; work proceeds from the combined database.

Which CRU is still working towards trying to make available. But they have to get a whole lot of permissions of their own before that can happen.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

I do not understand why the skeptics don't go through all the trouble that the CRU had to go through to get their massive amounts of data in the first place?

Because, in science, if you put forth a hypothesis, then you need to expect to defend that hypothesis and furnish the data you used and show how you used it to form your hypothesis. something, which sadly hasn't happened. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. So it should and really must hold up against scrutiny. It seems some scientists decided to cut out all of those troublesome, nitpicky details like having to prove their hypothesis or allow anyone to check it.

 

[skypunter]

"I do not understand why the skeptics don't go through all the trouble that the CRU had to go through to get their massive amounts of data in the first place?"

We have paid these scientists to gather the data for us. Why must we pay for it again?

 

[sylas]

Because, in science, if you put forth a hypothesis, then you need to expect to defend that hypothesis and furnish the data you used and show how you used it to form your hypothesis. something, which sadly hasn't happened. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. So it should and really must hold up against scrutiny. It seems some scientists decided to cut out all of those troublesome, nitpicky details like having to prove their hypothesis or allow anyone to check it.

Except that auditing is not the same thing as what is normally meant by testing a result in science.

A repeatable experiment in science is not one where someone else can come into your lab and double check all your equipment and proceed through all the same steps. That might be a useful kind of quality check for yourself; but the real scientific replication is when someone collects their own data independently, and does their own calculations independently, and gets an independent result that they can compare with yours.

If, perchance, someone gets a different result, then life gets interesting. In that case, you might indeed want to be able to backup and repeat exactly the same steps and see if you can find out where they go wrong; or where you did. And indeed scientists try to keep copious records and data for this purpose. Either that or get three other groups to do the independent repeat of the experiment, and see if there's an odd one out which you suspect must have gone wrong even if you never find out how.

An independent auditor who uses the same data you have used, and the same processing you have used, and checks that they get the same result that you have reported, can sometimes pick up fraud in that way. This doesn't happen very much in science. It's the independent replication that gets the highest priority and has the greatest scientific value. Because after all, if there ARE flaws of some kind in your processing and you've missed them in good faith as an honest researcher, then the auditor trying to repeat all the same steps will most likely show the same flaw. Not very useful.

The usual scientific form of check has been done here. Other groups (especially NASA and the NCDC) have done their own independent replication; and since CRU is mostly concerned with land data there are a couple of other replications around as well, which don't consider anomalies over the ocean; I am less familiar with them but have seen them reported in the literature.

What the scientific check did used different data and even a different algorithm, to calculate the anomalies. And they got the same result, to within the CRU reported measurement confidence. This gives confidence that the data products from these three groups really do give a reflection of an independently measurable quality of the real world; a repeatable experiment that anyone else could do, in principle.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Sorry!]

"I do not understand why the skeptics don't go through all the trouble that the CRU had to go through to get their massive amounts of data in the first place?"

We have paid these scientists to gather the data for us. Why must we pay for it again?

As sylas pointed out for the most part they didn't have to pay to receive the data. They are not ALLOWED to release the raw data though... that has nothing to do with the CRU. The fact that they dumped the data though, that does have to do with them but it occur quite a long time ago (almost 30 years ago).

@Evo, I don't think so... Instead they should be conducting their own experiments with their independently collected data to do this. Maybe then compare results.

EDIT: I've noticed sylas posted while I was typing. His post is more coherent than mine of course :tongue:

 

[skypunter]

Maybe "the science" is like high end software. We don't own it, we rent it.
The next upgrade payment comes due in Copenhagen.
Perhaps it's time to switch to Linux.

 

[skypunter]

What the scientific check did used different data and even a different algorithm, to calculate the anomalies. And they got the same result, to within the CRU reported measurement confidence. This gives confidence that the data products from these three groups really do give a reflection of an independently measurable quality of the real world; a repeatable experiment that anyone else could do, in principle.

Cheers -- sylas

I think you are diverting the issue here.
We're not only discussing erroneous data or programming glitches. We are talking about auditing the assumptions that the algorithms make about the dynamics of the atmosphere (not just the known radiative properties of CO2, so please don't go there). These assumptions need to be tested.

 

[sylas]

I think you are diverting the issue here.
We're not only discussing erroneous data or programming glitches. We are talking about auditing the assumptions that the algorithms make about the dynamics of the atmosphere (not just the known radiative properties of CO2, so please don't go there). These assumptions need to be tested.

Um, what? The algorithms we are speaking of don't make any assumptions at all about atmospheric dynamics. They are essentially just a big complicated averaging exercise. I think you may be mixing up climate models with calculation of surface temperature anomalies.

I'm not side tracking or diverting at all. The questions have been addressed at calculation of the surface anomaly, and THAT is what I am focusing upon.

I don't know how you could possibly "audit" an assumption. If you want to look at climate models now, which is a different thing entirely and which DOES involve atmospheric dynamics, then we can do that also. Many of the most important models have the code available, and the NASA modelE in particular is open source.

But as before, just poring over the code to look for assumptions or anything else is not very useful. What is useful is developing another model of your own, and comparing results. There are huge model intercomparison projects for doing just that. This is where the real scientific value lies; not in the detailed audit of a scientist you are inclined to distrust or whom you think is mistaken in some way.

However, I am going to continue to focus for the time being on what we've been discussing over the last few pages. The CRU calculation of surface temperature anomalies.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

As sylas pointed out for the most part they didn't have to pay to receive the data. They are not ALLOWED to release the raw data though... that has nothing to do with the CRU. The fact that they dumped the data though, that does have to do with them but it occur quite a long time ago (almost 30 years ago).

@Evo, I don't think so... Instead they should be conducting their own experiments with their independently collected data to do this. Maybe then compare results.

Uhuh, and since this group has shut out the other climate scientists due to their "good ol' boy network, they would be able to publish these findings where?

From other posts sylas would lead us to believe that any scientist that disagrees with the the ones that control the major journals <cough> cronyism <cough> are not really scientists, they are just layman dabbling in climate science (yes, I do intend to make more of this.)

I know of several such cases like this, where science is disputed by a lot of people, including many who have "some science training", despite the points at issue being considered settled by almost all the scientists actively working on it. However, why that occurs and to what extent is off topic for this thread, and indeed for this whole Earth forum.

Really?

sylas points to such non-scientists or was that "non-credible"? such as

Richard Lindzen

Curriculum Vitae

RICHARD SIEGMUND LINDZEN

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.[1] He was the lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has been a critic of some global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] This hypothesis suggested a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming.


EDUCATION:
A.B.(mcl) in Physics, l960, Harvard University.
S.M. in Applied Mathematics, l96l, Harvard University.
Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, l964, Harvard University. Thesis title: Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and
mesospheric dynamics.
WORK EXPERIENCE:
l964-l965. Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington.
l965-l966. NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo.
l966-l967. Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
April-June l967. Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA.
l968-l972. Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago.
Summers l968, l972, l978. Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium.
October-December l969. Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University.
l972-l982. Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University.
February-June l975. Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
January-June l979. Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem,
Israel.
September l980-June l983. Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University.
July l982-June l983. Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University.
July l983- . Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
June 1988- . Distinguished Visiting Scientist at Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
HONORS:
Phi Beta Kappa
Sigma Xi
NCAR Outstanding Publication Award, l967
AMS Meisinger Award, l968
AGU Macelwane Award, l969
Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, l970-l976
Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor at Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India, 1985
AMS Charney Award, 1985
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship, Dec. 1986-Jan. 1987
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
CV: R.S. Lindzen Page 2 June 1, 2008
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University, January 1992
Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria, March 1993
Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society, 1997
Leo Prize of the Wallin Foundation (first recipient), 2006
MEMBERSHIP:
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Sciences
American Academy of Arts and Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Geophysical Union
European Geophysical Society
World Institute of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
OTHER:
Consultant to the Goddard Laboratory for Atmospheres.
Member, International Commission on Dynamic Meteorology
Corresponding Member, Committee on Human Rights, National Academy of Sciences
Lead author of the 2001 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Member, Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, The Annapolis Center
Member, Climate Change Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee of the Department of Energy
Previous service includes serving on editorial board of Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and PAGEOPH, membership on
the Rocket Research Committee, the US GARP (Global Atmospheric Research Program) Committee, the Assembly of
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the executive committee of the Space Studies Board, and the executive committee of the
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council, serving as a member of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution Corporation and serving on the council of the American Meteorological Society, Atmospheric
Dynamics Committee of the AMS, MIT representative to UCAR, serving as a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.
CURRENT RESEARCH INTERESTS:
The general circulation of the Earth's atmosphere.
Climate dynamics.
Hydrodynamic shear instability.
Dynamics of the middle atmosphere.
Dynamics of planetary atmospheres.
Parameterization of cumulus convection.
Tropical meteorology.
MIT ACTIVITIES
Faculty Advisor, MIT Radio Society
Member, Board of MIT Hillel Foundation
Ph. D. THESIS STUDENTS
Donna Blake, Siu-Shung Hong, John Boyd, Lloyd Shapiro, Edwin Schneider, Margaret Niehaus, Jeffrey Forbes, Duane Stevens,
Ian Watterson, Arthur Hou, Brian Farrell, Petros Ioannou, Arthur Rosenthal, Ka-Kit Tung, David Jacqmin, Ronald Miller,
Arlindo DaSilva, Christopher Snyder, De-Zheng Sun, Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, Constantine Giannitsis, Gerard Roe, Nili Harnik,
Pablo Zurita-Gotor
CV: R.S. Lindzen Page 3 June 1, 2008

Roger Pielke

Roger Pielke, Jr.

Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
1333 Grandview Avenue
Campus Box 488
Boulder, CO 80309-0488


Tel: 303-735-0451
Fax: 303-735-1576
pielke@colorado.edu


Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). At CIRES, Roger served as the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2007. Roger's research focuses on the intersection of science and technology and decision making. In 2006 Roger received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. Before joining the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Roger is an Associate Fellow of the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at Oxford University's Said Business School. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Breakthrough Institute. He is also author, co-author or co-editor of five books. His most recent book is titled: The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics published by Cambridge University Press in 2007.

Most Recent Publications:

A Perspective Paper on Climate Engineering: Including an Analysis of Carbon Capture as a Response to Climate Change
The Folly of 'Magical Solutions' for Targeting Carbon Emissions
Normalized Earthquake Damage and Fatalities in the United States: 1900 - 2005
First Reflections from a Workshop on Science Policy Research and Science Policy Decisions
Climate Prediction: A Limit to Adaptation?
How to get climate policy back on course
The British Climate Change Act: A Critical Evaluation and Proposed Alternative Approach
Junk Science Week: The black box of risk
A third way, book review of The Politics of Climate Change by Anthony Giddens
Collateral Damage from the Death of Stationarity
Obama's Climate Policy: A Work in Progress
View all of Roger's publications
Roger Pielke, Jr.
I am a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I also have an appointment as a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University and am a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.

According to posts by sylas, no credible climate scientists are against agw.

This is from your posts in the Earth sciences forum sylas. If I missed something where you said that there are incredible climate scientists that know what they're doing that dispute agw, then I missed it.

 

[skypunter]

I'm not side tracking or diverting at all. The questions have been addressed at calculation of the surface anomaly, and THAT is what I am focusing upon.

Cheers -- sylas

Right you are. Lost focus there.
No dynamics involved.
Apololgy.

 

[skypunter]

My head is spinning.
We can discuss dynamics here?
Does CRU deal with anything more than temperature trends?
Do they run GCMs?
If so, I retract my apology.
I can read the code and determine what the assumptions are.
I don't have to write my own model, the burden of proof is not on me.
I only need to prove that the assumptions are wrong.

 

[sylas]

Uhuh, and since this group has shut out the other climate scientists due to their "good ol' boy network, they would be able to publish these findings where?

From other posts sylas would lead us to believe that any scientist that disagrees with the the ones that control the major journals <cough> cronyism <cough> are not really scientists, they are just layman dabbling in clinmate science (yes, I do intend to make more of this.) Really?

syslas points to such non-scientists such as

Richard Lindzen

WHAT?

Where?? Where have I ever referred to Richard Lindzen as anything other than a scientist?

And note that he continues to publish just fine.

Come on Evo! You are inventing statements out of the whole cloth and attributing to me views I have explicitly denied. I should really report a post like this. It's sarcastic, rude and diametrically reversed from reality. I do want to maintain a good working relationship with you; but we'll do that best if I can freely get angry at stuff like this. It won't last, I promise.

According to posts by sylas, no credible climate scientists are against agw.

You'd better quote me on that one too please. I do think there may be a handful of credible climate scientists who dispute the basics of anthropogenic global warming; and definitely a number who dispute some of the details while still recognizing that it exists.

Lindzen is in the latter category, in my opinion. His major focus is on the magnitude of climate sensitivity and possibility of negative climate feedbacks; which (if true) would significant reduce the magnitude of warming to be expected from anthropogenic effects.

There's nothing wrong or odd with a credible scientist holding and arguing for a minority view point; and Lindzen continue to do this in the conventional literature. I think he is incorrect; but I do not dispute that he is a credible and active climate scientist.

This is from you posts in the Earth sciences forum sylas. If I missed something where you said that there are incredible climate scientists that know what they're doing that dispute agw, then I missed it.

You sure did! I've mentioned Lindzen a couple of times, and never with anything disrespectful or denying his status as a scientist.

Try this:

They are not even close to the same thing; they are completely different. I'm rather baffled by this -- what's the same about it? Lindzen is talking about all the usual things atmospheric physicists talk about with feedbacks -- humidity and cloud, mainly. It's not remotely the same.

Lindzen does understand the greenhouse effect and how it works, and uses much the same basic no-feedback response as everyone else -- about 0.25 K/(Wm^-2) -- a simple approximation from the Stefan-Boltzman relation. He uses the same CO2 forcing as everyone else. Given current conditions, doubling CO2 gives an additional 3.7 W/m² of forcing... more energy. This is actually one of the most straightforward forcings involved in climate, and by now very well understood indeed. Lindzen's paper is NOT about greenhouse effects, or trying to rewrite the elementary thermodynamics involved in a greenhouse forcing -- which is what Chilingar does. The paper you cited is actually about sensitivity and feedback. A new thread on sensitivity might be interesting.

Another thread that would be useful, I think, is a kind of tutorial introduction to basic thermodynamics of how a greenhouse effect works at all, as a self contained thread entirely independent of sensitivity considerations, and using really basic science that ought to be a common basis for all these discussions; and is certainly taken for granted by someone like Lindzen, who actually IS a climate scientist.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[sylas]

My head is spinning.
We can discuss dynamics here?
Does CRU deal with anything more than temperature trends?
Do they run GCMs?
If so, I retract my apology.

They deal with all kinds of stuff. They do have climate models. But it still not appropriate to raise that new issue up and say that I am the one diverting the thread when in fact I am staying focused on what we've been discussing.

If you want to discuss climate models, go right ahead. It's a good topic. But recognize is it a new topic and probably belongs in its own thread. The CRU hack affair and the specific questions we've been looking at in relation to FOI and the emails and the so on are ALL to do with either paleoclimate reconstructions or the modern instrumental temperature record, CRUTEM.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Evo]

It's your blanket dismisal of anyone that disagrees with agw

science is disputed by a lot of people, including many who have "some science training", despite the points at issue being considered settled by almost all the scientists actively working on it.

So are the valid climate scientists that don't agree it's settled excluded from your statement? You meant except for the growing number of notable climate scientists that disagree this is settled? I'm just trying to figure out what you mean here, since several members have questioned your statement.

 

[Sorry!]

It's your blanket dismisal of anyone that disagrees with agw

I'm just curious when this happened by anyone?

 

[sylas]

It's your blanket dismisal of anyone that disagrees with agw So are the valid climate scientists that don't agree it's settled excluded from your statement? You meant except for the growing number of notable climate scientists that disagree with the pro-agw bunch? I'm just trying to figure out what you mean here, since several members have questioned your statement.

OK. D H asked me to be cautious of statements like this, but for the record I'll clarify again; since I actually think it is as well to be quite up front about things like this.

I consider anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to be a basic discovery about the real world.

I am, I think you might agree, not alone in this; and this view is one that you can find expressed by many working climate scientists. I have never said all working climate scientists, as far as I can recall. I confess I do think the possible exceptions are few and far between, and most of those are probably more accurately described as disputing some of the details without actually denying the phenomenon. I am sufficiently familiar with the field to feel comfortable that this is not merely presumption, but a real feature of the overwhelming trend amongst working climate scientists.

I do not simply give a blanket dismissal of anyone who disagrees with AGW. I try to engage their arguments on their own merits. That is not what I call blanket dismissal. I do, of course disagree with anyone that disagrees with AGW, just like they disagree with me. This doesn't bother me, and I don't take any offense at it, or presume that disagreement implies dismissal. It does not stop me from treating them with due respect, even though we may each think the other is badly incorrect on this subject.

I do not dismiss arguments unconsidered or unheard.

I try to engage, constructively, substantively, and focused upon the actual merits of any argument being raised; not on who raises it and not simply because the conclusion is one I don't agree with.

I do tend to dismiss some arguments as not worth bothering with in detail; I very much like the physicsforums guidelines which mean we stay focused on ideas that appear in the peer reviewed literature or equivalent. That still gives scope for a wide range of diverse views and some (not many!) publications that argue against AGW. There is certainly no lack of papers to dispute various details within AGW.

A contentious comparison

I consider that the climate science debates are a lot like the Intelligent design debates in a couple of respects; and that is what I am referring to in the above statement. Here again is the statement I made, in full:

I know of several such cases like this, where science is disputed by a lot of people, including many who have "some science training", despite the points at issue being considered settled by almost all the scientists actively working on it. However, why that occurs and to what extent is off topic for this thread, and indeed for this whole Earth forum.​

Other possible cases include: evolutionary biology, relativistic physics, big bang cosmology, vaccination risk and benefits, anthropogenic global warming, deep time geology, and there may be more.

Evolutionary biology, or big bang cosmology, would be the two instances that are in my opinion most comparable to anthropogenic global warming. This is a subjective classification, of course. In all three cases, the science is disputed by a lot of people, including many who have "some science training". This can be confirmed in each case because of large petitions of some kind that attempt to show a legitimate scientific objection to the conventional science involved. However, in each case, the great majority of the scientifically qualified signatories have no scientific publications in the field itself. In each case, almost all the scientists actively working on the field support the dominant theory (evolution, BB or AGW) as determined by a literature survey within the field. In each case again, there is a small handful of working scientists who dispute the dominant paradigm and sometimes who publish to say so. The precise numbers are not the same in each case and would be hard to quantify.

In all cases, any scientific theory or idea is never finally settled, and is always in principle open to question and refutation. In all cases, I prefer to address proposed refutations or criticisms of the dominant paradigm on their own merits, as best as can, based on actually understanding the specifics of the refutation or criticism, case, by case, by case.

It would boring if I simply repeated this every time, and I take D H's point that it is best not to be offensive. However, my honest opinion is not a secret, and if the opinion is itself offensive then that's unfortunate. Generally I don't have a problem with mutual friendly debate between strongly divergent view points, where neither side takes offense at the other.

That's a bit verbose, sorry. It's my failing, as you know. Cheers -- sylas

 

[russ_watters]

I consider anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to be a basic discovery about the real world.

A contentious comparison

I consider that the climate science debates are a lot like the Intelligent design debates in a couple of respects; and that is what I am referring to in the above statement. Here again is the statement I made, in full:

I know of several such cases like this, where science is disputed by a lot of people, including many who have "some science training", despite the points at issue being considered settled by almost all the scientists actively working on it. However, why that occurs and to what extent is off topic for this thread, and indeed for this whole Earth forum.​

Other possible cases include: evolutionary biology, relativistic physics, big bang cosmology, vaccination risk and benefits, anthropogenic global warming, deep time geology, and there may be more.

The difference between AGW and those other examples you have at the bottom is maturity. AGW is a young idea and as a result, the science behind it simply isn't mature. Even in cases where the evidence is crystal clear and incontrovertible, it can take decades for people to warm up to a new and profound idea. But in this case, the evidence is not clear. The impact so far is difficult to quantify and the predictions are statistical (as opposed to exact) in nature and require time in order to generate a good signal to noise ratio. That, combined with the potential seriousness of the issue lends itself well to propagandizing it on both sides. Also note that generally, the scientific consensus starts off against the new science until the science is mature. Here we have the opposite, which creates a risk of a self-reassuring delusion.

As a relative layperson, I generally trust a scientific consensus, but usually a scientific consensus is not so politicized and the science more mature. Adding to that, it appears that some of the very people making major contributions to the scientific consensus are guilty of something approaching academic fraud, or at least overzealous data calibration. How is a layperson supposed to have any trust in the scientific consensus when it has such fundamental problems?

 

[Al68]

Evolutionary biology, or big bang cosmology, would be the two instances that are in my opinion most comparable to anthropogenic global warming...In each case, almost all the scientists actively working on the field support the dominant theory (evolution, BB or AGW) as determined by a literature survey within the field.

Fields of study tend to be populated by people who mostly agree with the dominant theory. That's not evidence of the validity of the dominant theory. After all, it would be unsurprising to learn that almost all astrologers believe in astrology, most palm readers believe in palm reading, etc.

Should we conduct a survey among those "actively working in the field" to decide whether or not tarot card reading is valid?

Obviously, surveying those actively working in a field is not generally a good way to decide whether or not to agree with its dominant theory.

 

[Sorry!]

Fields of study tend to be populated by people who mostly agree with the dominant theory. That's not evidence of the validity of the dominant theory. After all, it would be unsurprising to learn that almost all astrologers believe in astrology, most palm readers believe in palm reading, etc.

Should we conduct a survey among those "actively working in the field" to decide whether or not tarot card reading is valid?

Obviously, surveying those actively working in a field is not generally a good way to decide whether or not to agree with its dominant theory.

I don't understand... who should we ask then?

 

[sylas]

The difference between AGW and those other examples you have at the bottom is maturity.

Maturity is not a binary proposition; but I would tend to think of evolution as mature by comparison with Big Bang cosmology and anthropogenic global warming.

Even in cases where the evidence is crystal clear and incontrovertible, it can take decades for people to warm up to a new and profound idea

Yes; and that is the case here also. Anthropogenic global warming is an idea that has been around for decades; and only comparatively recently has become sufficiently well confirmed to be truly dominant across the field.

But in this case, the evidence is not clear.

I disagree, with respect; and will be happy to take that up in the science forum. The evidence has become increasingly clear and has now won over almost all of the scientists working in the field. It really is the evidence that has made the difference; not politics or presumptions. But that again I guess is a point of debate, and I suggest it belongs in the science forum, where we can actually look at what is being published, on its own merits.

The impact so far is difficult to quantify and the predictions are statistical (as opposed to exact) in nature and require time in order to generate a good signal to noise ratio.

The impact of climate change is indeed very difficult to quantify; this is wide open and highly uncertain. But we are, nevertheless, at the point of trying to figure the impact from the solid ground that the phenomenon itself is real. (Another a point to consider on its merits in the light of what's happening in the world of science.)

That, combined with the potential seriousness of the issue lends itself well to propagandizing it on both sides.

Certainly true; and this can be distracting. But since the issue actually is potentially serious, there's not much to do about that except try our best to give an honest look at the evidence on its own merits, without letting perceived urgency (either an urgency to fix the planet or an urgency to stop the "alarmists") distort anything.

Also note that generally, the scientific consensus starts off against the new science until the science is mature. Here we have the opposite, which creates a risk of a self-reassuring delusion.

Big bang cosmology; yes, and then for a long time was basically a contender amongst others. Simon Singh's book tells the story well, I think.

The basic idea of evolutionary biology gained very rapid scientific assent; though the popular opposition was immediate as well, driven mainly by religion (even in the case of Intelligent Design, though its proponents sometimes argue that this is not so). The theory has developed considerably over the decades since Origin.

AGW fits your description pretty well. The first linkage of anthropogenic drivers, atmospheric composition change and global warming was in 1896. A good timeline of developments by Spencer Weart can be found here. There are quite a number of such potted histories for the history of climate science, and the main stages and the steadily increasing recognition of AGW is a consistent feature.

As a relative layperson, I generally trust a scientific consensus, but usually a scientific consensus is not so politicized and the science more mature. Adding to that, it appears that some of the very people making major contributions to the scientific consensus are guilty of something approaching academic fraud, or at least overzealous data calibration. How is a layperson supposed to have any trust in the scientific consensus when it has such fundamental problems?

I disagree with the claims of anything like academic fraud, and I think the science is sufficiently mature at this stage to give strong confidence for the AGW conclusion; though I grant it is a developing field still with enormous scope for further progress. It seems to me that the accusations of actual fraud are mainly coming from an extreme and strident fringe with a primarily political or economic motivation for their animus (I suspect), and with very little scientific expertise. I grant it is highly confusing for laypeople to sort out what or who to believe. More serious criticisms from individuals like Lindzen, or Christy, or Douglass, or a few others, don't tend to talk about fraud. The science itself goes on without bothering about any fraud issue, though it is enthusiastically embraced by some politicians.

Cheers -- sylas

Postscript. It occurs to me that there is a major difference between AGW and the other examples; and that is the phenomenon itself is one occurring in the present. Increasing acceptance and increasing evidence in this case is not merely because of better science; but also because the phenomenon itself has become stronger. It can be claimed as a successful prediction by some scientists who were based on physics rather observation of AGW itself. The physics of the greenhouse effect is very mature; the open questions are mostly in the response of the whole planet to that effect, which is not mature.

 

[Al68]

Fields of study tend to be populated by people who mostly agree with the dominant theory. That's not evidence of the validity of the dominant theory. After all, it would be unsurprising to learn that almost all astrologers believe in astrology, most palm readers believe in palm reading, etc.

Should we conduct a survey among those "actively working in the field" to decide whether or not tarot card reading is valid?

Obviously, surveying those actively working in a field is not generally a good way to decide whether or not to agree with its dominant theory.

I don't understand... who should we ask then?

You can just ask me, I'll tell you what to believe.

 

[Coldcall]

What i find most incredible about this saga is how any scientist, or even any layman with a keen interest in science (irrespective of whether they support agw theory or not) can defend or makes apologies for the dodgy and unscientific conduct at CRU.

The excuses i have seen on this and other forums by the apologists are just so insanely tribal that one really has to worry about the scientific process going forward.

And that seemingly knowledgeable individuals have the temerity to compare agw with thoroughly validated foundational theories such as evolution and relativity is just beyond a joke. By all means be a proponent of agw, but to kid yourselves that this fledgling theory (made impossible to reproduce easily because of dumped data) should be accorded the same status as evolution and relativity shows that some people have truly turned this into an ideology/religion.

Very sad day for science right across thee board.

 

[Count Iblis]

What i find most incredible about this saga is how any scientist, or even any layman with a keen interest in science (irrespective of whether they support agw theory or not) can defend or makes apologies for the dodgy and unscientific conduct at CRU.

The type of behavior that has been painted as problematic is in my experience very typical. In any field, if there are some scientists who have a slight crackpot view in some topic who publish such views in some journal, then there will be pressure exerted on the journal if that journal is an important journal.

Scientists also do not typically stick to all the rules they should stick to. The reason for that is usually lack of time. You don't want to waste your time on irrelevant matters. Data requested by some crackpot global warming deniers was not made available? Who cares! I cannot judge whether or not that was a real violaton of some rules at all. But it should be clear that this has nothing whatsoever to do with real science.

For talks given at conferences, you typically simplify matters to make your message more transparant. You let your collegues present at the conference ask the awkward questions about your oversimplifications after the talk.

Even when wrting in journals, you often have to simplify matters too. This is not scientific fraud. Often it are the Referees who ask that you use less accurate wording to make your text more readable. The fact that this may be misleading is not seen to be important. I've experienced that myself several times.

 

[Choronzon]

The type of behavior that has been painted as problematic is in my experience very typical. In any field, if there are some scientists who have a slight crackpot view in some topic who publish such views in some journal, then there will be pressure exerted on the journal if that journal is an important journal.

Scientists also do not typically stick to all the rules they should stick to. The reason for that is usually lack of time. You don't want to waste your time on irrelevant matters. Data requested by some crackpot global warming deniers was not made available? Who cares! I cannot judge whether or not that was a real violaton of some rules at all. But it should be clear that this has nothing whatsoever to do with real science.

For talks given at conferences, you typically simplify matters to make your message more transparant. You let your collegues present at the conference ask the awkward questions about your oversimplifications after the talk.

Even when wrting in journals, you often have to simplify matters too. This is not scientific fraud. Often it are the Referees who ask that you use less accurate wording to make your text more readable. The fact that this may be misleading is not seen to be important. I've experienced that myself several times.

In every single field I have ever worked in, most notably the military, there were always people who could come up with a thousand excuses for a lack of professionalism and ethics. They all sound just like the excuses you just gave us.

 

[Count Iblis]

In every single field I have ever worked in, most notably the military, there were always people who could come up with a thousand excuses for a lack of professionalism and ethics. They all sound just like the excuses you just gave us.

Excuses or not, what matters is how people work in practice. Scientists are certainly not (in general) unethical and they will stick to all relevant rules. But it is a fact that there are many irrelevant bureaucratic rules that are widely ignored. In each field there are different issues. I have no experience in the climate science field. My experiences based on how things work in physics, suggest to me that nothing relevant to the science itself has happened, regardless of whether or not any actual rules were violated.

 

[Andre]

Maybe some info about that request for raw data which is the one of the discussion items. The original requestor is Warwick Hughes who worked on urban heat island effect for Australia. So he was well aware of the temperature data for Australia and his research seemed to justify some conclusions. However, Jones et al 1986*, showed rather different results, which made Warwick curious about the used data and methods. So eventually he requested the data for some reasons including the wish to compare the results. The response is a classic.

Data requested by some crackpot global warming deniers was not made available? Who cares!

So where would the classification 'crackpot' fit in?






*P.D. Jones, S.C.B. Raper, and T.M.L. Wigley; 1986 Southern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851–1984, Journal of Applied Meteorology: Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1213–1230.