Embattled UK climate scientist steps down
The embattled director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), Dr. Phil Jones, announced that he will be temporarily standing aside as director. An independent review of his conduct in light of the emails illegally hacked from his computers last month is in progress. In a press release, Professor Jones said: "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support".
The University and the police are investigating the break-in, and it is currently unknown if this was the act of an insider or an external break-in. I think it is highly unlikely this was the work of an insider in a whistle-blower type of action, since a computer at realclimate.org was hacked into the same week (via a computer in Turkey), and the criminal attempted to upload the emails stolen from CRU to the realclimate.org server. This is not the sort of action a whistleblower would do. Dr. Gavin Schmidt of realclimate.org said in a comment yesterday that the CRU break-in appeared to have been done from the outside, into a backup mail server. It is unlikely the hacker acted alone, since hackers aren't typically intimately familiar with the details of the climate change science debate. The emails and code stolen were selectively culled by someone who appeared to have considerable expertise in climate science.
What did Dr. Jones do wrong?
So, what did Dr. Jones do wrong? For starters, he should have confronted the allegations raised by his critics immediately and talked candidly to the press about some of the specific accusations being made. For example, one of the emails contained the statement that he would like to "redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is" to exclude two questionable papers from the IPCC report. Well, that's not something a good scientist should seriously advocate, and is an impossibility, in any case. No one can redefine the peer-reviewed literature, since the rules for this are well-established an not subject to change. When I read the comment in the context it was made, it reads as a joke. There is no discussion in the hacked emails about how to go about redefining the peer-reviewed literature. In the end, the two papers Jones was referring to with this comment, McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), ended up being cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report. Those intent on discrediting the science of human-caused global warming are spinning the comment differently, creating a controversy about something that is impossible to do, and was not being seriously suggested. Jones should have immediately spoken up to quash the hype on this comment.
The "trick" to "hide the decline"
Another area of concern is over a graph Dr. Jones helped construct in 1999 showing the "hockey stick" of Earth's surface temperature going back 1,000 years. This graph combined instrumental measurements made since the 1800s with older paleoclimate data (including data from tree rings) to show a continuous 1,000 year record of Earth's temperatures. The paleoclimate data after 1960 show a bogus decline in Earth's temperatures that does not agree with what modern thermometers have been measuring, due to a well-known variation in tree ring thickness as a function of time, referred to as "the decline". Thus, Jones elected to toss out the bogus paleoclimate data (using a "trick" to "hide the decline") rather than present it in the graph. The graph was not properly labeled to show this was done, so viewers of the graph would have had needed to be familiar with a 1998 paper published in Nature or the 1999 paper referenced in the caption on the graph, which explained this well-known data issue. The graph that Jones used his "trick" on was put into a 1999 report called the "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate". The report was given to policy makers, but was never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. No reputable climate scientist believes that the paleoclimate data since 1960 is of higher quality than the instrumental record (this is discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report). In order to make the "hokey stick" graph less confusing, removing "the decline" from the tree ring data is a reasonable thing to do--provided one labels the graph properly. The graph was not properly labeled. Does Jones' "trick" and failure to properly label the graph constitute data falsification, or was it merely sloppy science? The hacked emails contain no suggestions that the "trick" was done to intentionally fool people, and the "trick" never appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including the IPCC reports. In Dr. Jones' words, "This is well-known and is called the "decline" or "divergence". The use of the term "hiding the decline" was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure".
Figure 1. The WMO 1999 "hockey stick" figure (top) with climate reconstructions and instrumental temperatures merged, and a version (bottom) with the climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately. Note "the decline" in the temperature obtained from tree ring data (green curve) in the bottom curve. Image credit: University of East Anglia.
Global warming contrarians are spinning the "trick" as reason to discredit the "hockey stick", claiming that the data was falsified to hide the fact that tree rings were telling the real story. Since the hockey stick was falsified, some claim, the entire science behind human-caused global warming needs to be questioned. This is plain ludicrous. The graph was never published in a scientific journal. Several updated versions of the "hockey stick" graph have been published in the ten years since the disputed graph was produced, and the "hockey stick" can be reproduced in essentially the same form excluding the controversial tree rings, using other paleoclimate data such as boreholes (See Mann et al., 2008, Figure 2). Furthermore, the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused global warming is not based solely upon the "hockey stick" and the CRU data used for the last 150 years of the hockey stick graph. There are three separate data sets of global temperatures maintained by NASA, the CRU, and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, that all show essentially the same global warming. We also have evidence from nature herself in the form of plants and animals expanding their ranges poleward, the record loss of Arctic sea ice in 2007 and record loss of multi-year Arctic sea ice this year, the shrinking of mountain glaciers, reductions in the length of freeze season in many Northern Hemisphere lakes and rivers, the shifting of spring blooms earlier in most regions of the world, and on and on and on. Again, Jones should have spoken up immediately to kill the ridiculous hype being pushed by global warming contrarians about the importance of a 10-year old graph that is now scientifically irrelevant, and was never published.
Figure 2. The "hockey stick" of global temperature anomalies since 300 A.D., as published in a 2008 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Mann et al.. Even if one excludes tree rings (blue curve), the hockey stick looks the same.
Resistance to releasing data to other researchers
The hacked emails also show that Dr. Jones resisted releasing his data to contrarians and urged others to delete emails regarding Freedom Of Information (FOI) related requests. Many countries protect their weather data under an international agreement called World Meteorological Organization Resolution 40, which prohibits the data from being made public (this is why wunderground can't give out the UKMET model forecasts on our web site, for example). About 5% of the CRU data fell in that category, making release illegal. However, deleting emails related to FOI requests is inadvisable and implies one has something to hide. The investigation should certainly pursue the issue of whether Dr. Jones properly handled the requests to turn over his data to outside researchers. Ideally, weather data documenting Earth's climate history should be free to everyone on the planet (I am not a big fan of WMO Resolution 40). However, another aspect to this issue is the time it takes for the scientists involved to prepare the data for release. Large, complicated data sets require extensive documentation and access to related computer codes in order to process them, and making the data available to every amateur investigator interested in the data puts an unfair burden on the scientists who maintain the data sets. In particular, an amateur climate science investigator named Stephen McIntyre, who runs the web site Climate Audit, has created such an issue. McIntyre, a retired mining executive and an investor, is not a professional scientist, but has been successful identifying several technical errors made in the published literature. He has also generated a huge amount of misleading and incorrect information over the years, and has done a tremendous amount of damage to the understanding of climate science. McIntyre is intent on discrediting the science of human-caused global warming--presumably for ideological reasons, since he has no obvious ties to the fossil fuel industry--and has generated a large number of Freedom of Information requests to further his cause. One of the hacked emails, from Dr. Ben Santer, complained that McIntyre's FOI requests were intrusive and unreasonable with no scientific justification or explanation given, and appeared to be a calculated strategy to divert Santer's attention and focus away from research. It's worth reading Santer's reaction to the hacked email affair to learn more. Given such tactics by McIntyre, Dr. Jones' resistance to FOI requests from McIntyre is understandable, but appears to have been poorly handled.
The science of human-caused global warming remains unaffected
None of the hacked emails reveal any conspiracy to publish falsified or "fudged" material in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The science of human-caused global warming will require no revision as a result of this affair. Baseless accusations of fraud, data manipulation, and conspiracy against climate change scientists stemming from the hacked emails are being massively hyped by the Manufactured Doubt industry in an effort to discredit climate scientists, since no flaw with the science can be found. Most of the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad, so if you can create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion, you can win--or at least buy time, lots of it. The hacked email affair is all about politics, not science. Dr. Jones is an excellent scientist, but unfortunately was over-matched as a politician. It was hardly a fair fight--one scientist against the political might of the mightiest PR campaign against science ever waged, armed with some selectively culled stolen emails taken out of context.
Other posts in this series
The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy
Is more CO2 beneficial for Earth's ecosystems?
Next post
I'm working on a post called, "Don't shoot the messenger", and plan to run this Sunday or Monday.
Our Climate Change expert, Dr. Ricky Rood, will be in Copenhagen for Monday's start to the crucial COP15 climate change treaty negotiations. Be sure to tune into his blog for updates on the talks. Wunderground has provided financial support for several University of Michigan students to attend the talks, and I may be featuring portions of their blogs over the coming weeks.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 — Blog Index
I just KNEW there was something about you...
heheheh
Regards to the Flood!
Thanks Pot. Can I call you Pot or would that be offensive? Heck, Pot may be legal soon!
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
By Diane Macedo
Jon Stewart discusses leak of controversial emails exchanged by British climate researchers.
ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.
The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.
"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”
Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.
"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data – in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.
Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.
Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, "none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. ... This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal."
The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks' Climate-gate coverage.
"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday.
Related Stories
· Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down
· Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data
· Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails
But during that time, the Institute says, "the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' 'minor' car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner."
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacted to the findings saying, "To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism."
That left Stewart to fill the void — with analysis of the comedic variety.
The comedian mocked the scientists for discarding the raw data used to formulate the adjusted temperature data that much of the scientific community agrees confirms global warming is occurring.
"Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s!" he joked.
I think you are missing the point entirely. It is Global Warming we are talking about. Not the weather in Houston.
LOL! Thought you disappeared there for a while!
LOL...I haven't had a chance to play in the "mud" for a VERY long time, and I miss it terribly. First thing I'm doing when we win the lottery is building some studio space, buying a wheel and finishing my Raku kiln!
I'll pass along the greetings to Flood. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't been here today.
I was snarfing down my lunch...priorities, junky, priorities....
Global warming does not dictate that unseasonably cold temperatures and consequent winter events cannot occur from time to time.
In fact, one could argue that global warming intensifies such events, by providing more water vapor, and thus, more instability.
Ya that looks like a creditable source, I found it on google search so it must be correct. Give me a break man, your sources are not the best either. Use peer reviewed articles.
Wooly Mammoth flatulance?
Winter Storm Event likely Friday with historic accumulating snowfall over SE TX.
Winter Storm Watch will be in effect from 600am Friday morning to midnight Friday…watch will likely be upgraded to a warning later tonight or early Friday.
Discussion:
Arctic boundary slicing through C TX moving toward the coast with temperatures falling into the lower 40’s and upper 30’s north of this boundary. Powerful trough/short wave over New Mexico is rounding toward W TX with snow breaking out and being reported now at Lubbock. Impressive isentropic lift and jet dynamics come to bear on the region after daybreak Friday. Visible images show rapid N expansion of S TX moisture/cloud shield suggesting the GFS may in fact be getting ready to nail this event from Monday. Things appear to be coming together just as the GFS has been suggesting. With this in mind will go ahead and bump up to 70% chance of snow for Friday in line with the GFS output and mirror accumulations close to this model…especially since the 18Z NAM is falling in line with this thinking and the other drier models have swung toward the wetter solutions. Event is starting to look very similar to the Great 2004 Christmas snowstorm…although totals do not look as likely as in 2004.
This is one of the most highly forecast snow events I have ever seen with some near excellent model agreement…with that in mind a few things could still go wrong and prevent the accumulation totals below. I am glad we only deal with this now once every year!
Accumulation:
Will leave these unchanged from the previous thinking…will probably tinker some late tonight or early Friday.
Austin to College Station to Huntsville:
Will be lowering totals in this region as focus is shifting southward. A dusting to 2” is possible starting early Friday morning.
Columbus to Conroe to Lake Livingston:
This area should be on the north side of the heavier snow band with accumulations of 1-3 inches possible. Should see onset of snow by early to mid morning with accumulations by late morning as temperatures fall to freezing.
US 59 from Victoria to Liberty Co including metro Houston:
Accumulations in the 2-4” range across this area including metro Houston with some areas possibly picking up 6”. Will onset snow between 1000am and noon Friday and continue into early evening. May need to add moderate and heavy snow with visibilities tanking to below 1/4th of a mile at times in heavy snow bands. Could see up to 1” per hour of accumulation. Given the possible increased snowfall rates…not only bridges, but surface streets may become issues by Friday afternoon as surface temperatures fall to and below freezing.
Coastal Counties:
Will need to add accumulation to the coastal counties given the latest data with 1-2” likely including the beaches. Will see snow onset before noon in the Victoria area and spread NE up the coast by early afternoon. May need to go even higher on the accumulation in this region if the models continue to trend southward.
Actions:
Same as the earlier e-mail.
I have had several questions regarding timing and road impacts. Best I can tell is onset of SN over Montgomery/Waller Counties in the 900-1100am then Fort Bend/N and W Harris 1000am-noon and the rest of Harris, Brazoria/Galveston noon-200pm. Initial SN will melt on impact until air temp reaches freezing or snowfall rates exceed melting rates. Once SN begins to fall expect about 1-2 hours before bridges/overpasses ice/glaze over. Remember this is snow falling at your destination not your location.
Travel will become increasingly hazardous Friday afternoon as snowfall rates increase in heavy banding. May see a period of heavy snow with visibilities down to 1/4 or less or a mile in meso scale snow bands. Quick accumulations even of surface streets will be likely under the heavy snow bands.
Freezing Temperatures:
May need to go lower on overnight lows Saturday morning given expected snow cover on the ground. Could see lower 20’s in a few locations N/W and mid 20’s into several locations…even as far S as VCT. Will see little warming Saturday as sun light goes into snow melt instead of low level warming.
Request:
I rarely have request of folks, but am asking for you help as this event unfolds on Friday. There is a general lack of good surface data W, SW, and NW or in the area from College Station to Victoria. Any persons that could provide P-type information and intensities it would be greatly appreciated.
Next update will be Friday morning unless there are significant changes this evening.
Again, you're missing the big temperature. It was only cold in Texas because the giantic Gulf low pulled cold Arctic air across the Continental United States. This pattern is consistent with El Nino and a strong Arctic Oscillation, both of which can be enhanced by global warming. It might have been cold in Texas, but in Southern Ontario on Tuesday, I saw a mosquito and it's December (we never see mosquitoes this late). The difference is that you were on the western side of the low and I was on the eastern side, and we got a night of heavy rain.
Did you get any junkpile frolic time in there?
Sounds good, peer reviewed are a lot better than something you find on google search.
Short answer: Milankovich cycles. As the Earth's position to the sun causes warming, the biosphere releases CO2 emissions, warming it up. But the change in CO2 concentrations from 1800 to today is actually greater than the change between the peak of the last ice age (20,000 years bp) to 1800.
Could you possibly please stop stretching the blog with REALLY long and sometimes redundant posts? Not trying to be derogatory, serious request here.
Ooohhh...I could get into a lotta trouble on that website! Some people surf porn...I prefer art. LOL
Visible images show rapid N expansion of S TX moisture/cloud shield suggesting the GFS may in fact be getting ready to nail this event from Monday. Things appear to be coming together just as the GFS has been suggesting. With this in mind will go ahead and bump up to 70% chance of snow for Friday in line with the GFS output and mirror accumulations close to this model…especially since the 18Z NAM is falling in line with this thinking and the other drier models have swung toward the wetter solutions. Event is starting to look very similar to the Great 2004 Christmas snowstorm…although totals do not look as likely as in 2004.
No, all of us have not been banned.
The GW blogs are interesting, but many want to argue their points, which I recognize as part of a debate. Unfortunately, some take it personal, then act childish or foolishly.
I am not perfect, neither do I walk on water. I raised 5 children, I'm almost 50. I do not like watching grown adults act like children, so I lurk or visit other internet sites of interest to myself.
...as a direct result of reflection/scattering by aerosols and smog that largely increased from the 50s to the early 80s and then was largely reduced, at least in North America, due to curtailing particulate emissions starting in the late 70s.
And is still present in some locations for a few days a year in the form of NOx (brown haze), but thankfully not the way it used to be with clouds of particulate aerosols downwind of every single factory smokestack, power plant, etc.
So now the particulate aerosol part of that equation has been reduced here. So less "clean" sunlight from the 50s through the late 70s, then "cleaner" since. How is that accounted for in the historical measurements? I don't believe it is.
What was your point?
Visible images show rapid N expansion of S TX moisture/cloud shield suggesting the GFS may in fact be getting ready to nail this event from Monday. Things appear to be coming together just as the GFS has been suggesting. With this in mind will go ahead and bump up to 70% chance of snow for Friday in line with the GFS output and mirror accumulations close to this model…especially since the 18Z NAM is falling in line with this thinking and the other drier models have swung toward the wetter solutions. Event is starting to look very similar to the Great 2004 Christmas snowstorm…although totals do not look as likely as in 2004.
We have much in common, Bordonaro - the kids, the age and the dislike of adults squabbling like pre-schoolers. And don't you live in North Texas, too? :)
Big problem. The CO2 spikes in prehistorical times as (per ice cores) come 800 years AFTER the temperature spikes. So the "warming it up" had nothing at all to do with the CO2 concentration
Nobody wants to answer the question accept for one funny guy with a wholly mammoth answer
guy? guy??! I'm a chick! Just ask presslord!!!!!
We all knew he was fast haha
Those who blame 2005 on global warming are idiots, plain and simple.
So what portion of our last-50-years temperature trend is attributable to cleaner particulate emissions vs more CO2, in your opinion?
Undeniable that a temperature trend over the span of 1950 to now wouldn't owe some credit to the diminished scattering of incoming sunlight in the atmosphere.
Whew!!!! Had me worried for a moment. Thought there was something you forgot to mention... operation!!!
;)
*contains a couple of swear words
You tell him, Amy!
And with that, I'm out...going home to the Floodman! :)
Viewing: 401 - 451
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 — Blog Index