frankhagan.com

Climate science is a technical field. Modern measurements, reaching back only a few decades, provide us with a degree of precision not found in historical records (yet even modern measurements have problems). To calculate the tiny changes that may be the beginning of global warming we need modern precision for past ages as well. So scientists develop historical temperature records based on things like tree ring growth, ice core samples, and sediment at the bottom of lakes. These physical artifacts act like a proxy for a precision thermometer. At least in theory.

The scientific method requires that after the hypothesis is proposed, a period of testing ensues to prove the hypothesis. We tend to have a romantic view of science as dispassionate and reasoned, with white-coats and pocket protectors and mutual respect all around. We forget that Einstein called Monsignor Georges Lemaître a moron before finally accepting Lemaître’s hypothesis of the primeval atom (or, “Big Bang”). Scientists often protect their data and become entrenched in their positions long past the time the evidence indicates they should move on.

You can ignore the hysterical non-scientific accounts and the deconstructing of them as inconvenient hysteria. It doesn’t matter if former VP Al Gore got much wrong; he’s not the one doing the research. But when the ones publishing the data find they have major errors they … sometimes grudgingly … admit it and go back to the data for a re-write. Or not.

Work by statistician Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit.com has resulted in an admission that much of the work going into one series of past temperature records (tree ring data) was inadequate and should not be used. Predictably, like Einstein, the supporters of the data at RealClimate.org are calling McIntyre a moron. But the original scientist compiling the data, Keith Briffa, has a much more reasoned (and scientific) response. Basically, “oops, don’t use this data yet”.

Now we find yet another past-temperature “proxy” has problems: sediment at the bottom of lake Korttajärvi cataloged by Finnish scientists. It seems that McIntyre and others first caught the error, and it has been confirmed by the original scientists: the data is sometimes presented “upside down” showing a warming trend when it shows nothing of the sort. Dr. Atte Korhola, at the University of Helsinki, is an expert in lake sediment studies:

Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world’s most influential climate website, RealClimate.

H/T to the Air Vent blog.

Science is often messy, with emotion and angst, recriminations and entrenched positions defended vigorously. That’s the way it works. Some prefer to accuse others of prevarication, but it hardly matters. The only thing that matters is whether or not the hypothesis is true, and proving that often takes years.

Before we begin to formulate public policy, adding burdens like Cap and Trade to our economy, we should be sure the consensus view is actually true.

Because in science, the consensus view is always wrong, until it is finally right.

Cross posted to Donklephant

Climate climate change, global warming, hockey sticks

Drudge evidently linked to a BBC post regarding the cooling trend seen by many climate experts, a trend that could last up to 30 years. It flies in the face of the more strident global warming advocates, but really doesn’t change much among the scientists studying the phenomenon.

Cooling and warming trends exist throughout history. So the question is if the overall impact of increased CO2 and equivalents is toward overall warming. If yes, then man made global warming is something we have to address. But the new information, if true, gives us more time to do that.

Damian Thompson at the UK-based Telegraph, blogs about the BBC’s “about face” on the issue of global warming by correspondent Paul Hudson:

Hudson’s piece is a U-turn – not because he has joined the ranks of sceptics who reject the theory of man-made global warming, but because at last he has written a story about the well-established fact that the earth’s temperature has not risen since 1998, and reports seriously the theories of climatologists (themselves not sceptics) who believe that we are in for 30 years of cooling caused by the falling temperatures of the oceans.

See Paul Hudson’s original article on the BBC. Hudson recounts studies showing that ocean temperature fluctuation seems to have more to do with decadal temperature fluctuations than previously thought.

Thompson notes the controversy is heating up, with The Great Beyond blog at Nature dissing two of the experts originally quoted by the BBC as dyed-in-the-wool skeptics. The intent of attacking these two experts seems to call the entire BBC post into question. But Nature ignores the quote from Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a well-respected scientist who is not a skeptic and who claims we may be in for 10 to 20 years of cooling, not warming:

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

Nature and other “true believers” would do well to not stand in the way of true scientific inquiry. Skepticism is good, as it should turn people back to their climate models to prove the other guy wrong. But I’m not sure selective quoting and throwing what is, in essence, a hissy fit is productive.

Hissy fits aside, it appears to me that the correct climate model will be the one that most accurately predicts what will happen. If cooling continues, then we need a climate model that accurately predicts that.

Climate climate change, global warming

As a global climate change agnostic, I often find myself disagreeing with most of the polarized views on the subject. I don’t embrace every criticism of either side as another chink in its armor, and I don’t celebrate error, omission and claims of outright deception. Science is often messy, more akin to making sausage from scratch than assembling automobiles in a modern factory.

So my reaction to the latest “hockey stick” kerfluffle I blogged about in Climate Change Change was bit different: I’m glad that it looks like the warming trend may not be as severe as we first feared. If true, it means that we have time to prepare humanity for the changes, and incorporate the twin goals of American energy independence and sound environmental policy.

It was a pleasure to find Thomas Fuller’s comments that more closely align with my own beliefs. In his excellent San Francisco Examiner post How global warming looks without the various versions of the Hockey Stick, Fuller sums up the controversy from the same perspective I have:

. . . McIntyre’s work leads to the strong suggestion that the warming experienced since 1880 and more emphatically between 1975 and 1998 is real, but not unprecedented. These global mean surface temperatures have been seen, during the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period. As those periods of warming occurred without the benefit of human contributions of CO2, it removes some (not all) of the urgency from the arguments about global warming.

This, if true, is an unmitigated blessing, as it will allow us to plan for a future that has hope for the developing world and does not require us to throw the circuit breaker on energy consumption in the developed world. It does not mean we can ignore the issue–we do need to ‘decarbonize’ our way of life, and the sooner the better. But we can, if McIntyre is right, do it at a pace that allows time for adjustment, and continue to fund solutions to other problems as well.

I’m past caring about motives–if Briffa is wrong, let’s find out fast. Let’s find out even faster if he’s right. Whatever political or economic imperatives have been pushing this line of thinking, they need to be either verified or falsified now. If global warming will raise the temperature of this planet by 2 degrees Celsius over the course of this century, it will be a problem. But it’s a vastly different problem than the global warming of 7 to 9 degrees suggested by those who have been most alarmed.

Bravo, Mr. Fuller!

Climate Briffa, global warming, hockey sticks

As an agnostic on the global warming debate, I’m often amused by the stridency of those claiming a scientific high ground. The test of anyone trying to tell the future is, well, if that future comes true or not. To put it in religious terms:

When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord has truly sent him. (Jeremiah 28:9)

Those embracing “scientific consensus” will bristle at that quote since they are not merely religious, but have the weight of “scientific consensus” on their sides.

The problem is that after dire warnings from non-scientists adhering with religious fervor to the cause, some of the predictions are not coming true. Warming isn’t happening as they anticipated, as the BBC’s Tom Fielden’s blog notes:

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world’s leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.

Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.

“The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm”.

Scientists have most often couched their language to consider this kind of possibility, but not the non-scientist adherents who have popularized the message. Politicians and environmental activists seem to embrace the global warming hypothesis for other reasons, like protection of the environment, energy independence, etc. And in their strident, almost religious advocacy they have painted themselves into a corner.

The good news is that a scientific consensus seems to be forming that we have 10 to 30 years to transition away from releasing greenhouse gasses for energy production, and can prevent the warming the scientists still think is a strong possibility in the future. We don’t have to kill every other person to reduce our “carbon footprint”, or throw the entire mid-west and northeast into a serious depression by immediately ceasing the use of coal. We can let market forces and gentle government nudging move us toward cleaner energy production and energy independence.

Ever since the Puritans landed and worried that hidden witchcraft threatened society, religious and non-religious Americans have held a sense of impending doom unless we do something. From Cotton Mather to Joe McCarthy to Al Gore, the American penchant for believing in pending apocalypse remains.

The new models actually give me more hope than before. Rather than being “too late” and past a “tipping point”, we can work toward solutions. Increasing clean domestic energy production, replacing coal on a reasonable time table (or finding a way to use it without releasing mercury and other toxins into the air) and freeing ourselves from reliance on the middle east for oil are noble and reasonable goals. And if the scientist’s finally have their models fine-tuned, we also avoid global warming (if it exists).

Climate, Politics Al Gore, climate change, global warming

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that Al Gore’s personal carbon footprint has increased 10%, at least in terms of the electrical usage in his home:

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

What gives Al Gore the right to pontificate about global warming and other environmental issues when he himself causes more damage to the environment than the average American? Shouldn’t Al Gore take a cue from someone like Ed Begley Jr. who walks the walk while talking the talk.

Climate, Politics Al Gore, global warming, hypocrasy