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

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