The GW denialists are winning

[modest]

I've been asking people, "Have you heard about Climategate? It sounds like the biggest science scandal since Piltdown Man on steroids." but only one out of ten have the vaguest notion of what I'm talking about. I find this kind of behavior reprehensible, I think there should be investigations, hearings, trials, firings, fines and jail for the guilty. I want to see some of our taxpayer money given as science grants, returned.

 

I want to see heads roll, I'm angry. Science shouldn't work this way.

 

Until Colbert mentioned it last night I was blissfully unaware of the controversy. :Guns:

 

I looked over the offending emails this morning and I have to agree with Cedars that this is a bit of a black eye for some of the top tier global warming climatologists. The email I specifically looked into was:

Phil Jones to Mann, Bradley, and Hughes

 

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

 

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

 

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

 

Cheers

Phil

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

 

We've discussed the tree ring proxy data in previous Hypography global warming threads, though it might take some searching to find. Specifically, it looks like "1961 for Keith's to hide the decline" refers to:

 

Low-frequency Temperature Variations from a Northern Tree Ring Density Network--16-Feb-2001--K. briffa et al

 

The tree ring proxy data marked "this study" in light blue stops (apparently arbitrarily) at 1961:

 

-

hi res source

 

The numerical data archived for the study on NOAA's website also stops at 1961. Column 3 at:

Data file to accompany Plate 3 of Briffa et al. (2001)

Reading the email, I get the impression that the data after 1961 for this particular study (and post-1981 for the others) was omitted from the graph, the paper, and the archive specifically to "hide a decline" in proxy temperature data. It would be hard to explain why 40 years of instrumental temperature records disagree with tree ring reconstructions, but if there is such a disagreement between the two data sets then the ethical thing to do, I would think, is publish all the data and investigate the disagreement openly rather than hiding it.

 

And, to dig the hole a little deeper ;), the 'full' proxy data set (including 1961-1994) is available in one of the hacked emails,

Tim Osborn to M Mann

which I've just imported along with the original archived version into excel (it's attached) and graphed it:

 

 

By every indication that I can figure, they simply deleted the red bit because it didn't agree with real-world temperature observations, or, as Jones originally put it, in order to "hide the decline".

 

I *don't* think this calls into question all the good science and reliable work that has been done in climatology. This is certainly unfortunate and I think the emails deserve scrutiny as do the email's correspondents and their data. Many people here on Hypography including myself, after all, have posted graphs including the data above and made conclusions based on them. But, I don't think calling for heads to roll and jail and that type of thing is the most useful reaction.

 

The politically charged atmosphere (from either side) does the science no good. It would, at this point, be far more interesting to understand the reason for the divergent data represented by the red part of the graph above than understanding the reason they concealed it.

 

For example, why have tree rings acted the way they have over the last 30 - 40 years? What does it say about past reconstructions and current temperature tracking?... that sort of thing.

 

~modest

[BrianG]

Modest, the emails seem to show a conspiracy to distort the data. This is a serious accusation and I appreciate your description of this hoax. All climate scientists aren't in on it, but many of the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis are. I hope we will be able to find out what's been done with this climate data, and who did it. Keep up the good work!

[Essay]

Modest, the emails seem to show a conspiracy to distort the data. This is a serious accusation and I appreciate your description of this hoax. All climate scientists aren't in on it, but many of the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis are. I hope we will be able to find out what's been done with this climate data, and who did it. Keep up the good work!

Brian, we could try to continue where we left off previously. I wonder what you thought of my first reply to you.

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/21544-gw-denialists-winning.html#post285687

 

I think I've seen all of the "questionable" emails, and they seem easily defensible, so I'd be willing to hear your take -on my take- of the emails; but just the emails (and scientific method/scientific ethics in general).

 

As you say, the emails "seem to show a conspiracy...."

I think the context clearly shows a unique level of frustration. Which do you think is more likely?

 

Did you read today's press release from UEA, East Anglia University?

[Turtle]

Because I can find absolutely no info on continental methane deposits (except in russia). Its existence (in any quantity) is speculated. The confirmed areas of methane deposits are continental shelf areas.

 

So I went with what there was info on.

 

 

Methane clathrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continental

Methane clathrates in continental rocks are trapped in beds of sandstone or siltstone at depths of less than 800 m. Sampling indicates they are formed from a mix of thermally and microbially derived gas from which the heavier hydrocarbons were later selectively removed. These occur in Alaska, Siberia as well as Northern Canada.

 

In 2008, Canadian and Japanese researchers extracted a constant stream of natural gas from a test project at the Mallik gas hydrate field in the Mackenzie River delta. This was the second such drilling at Mallik: the first took place in 2002 and used heat to release methane. In the 2008 experiment, researchers were able to extract gas by lowering the pressure, without heating, requiring significantly less energy.[20] The Mallik gas hydrate field was first discovered by Imperial Oil in 1971-1972.[21] ...

 

 

The Mallik Gas Hydrate Field: Lessons Learned From 30 Years of Gas Hydrate Investigation, by Scott R. Dallimore, T. S. Collett, T. Uchida, M. Weber, A. Chandra, T.H. Mroz, E. M. Caddel, T. Inoue, H. Takahashi, A.E. Taylor, and the Mallik Gas Hydrate

 

ps i don't have a side in this; just saw a geology question is all.

[Essay]

There's also this article on recent research, in the Dec. '09 Scientific American.

 

Arctic Climate Threat--Methane from Thawing Permafrost: Scientific American

"New estimates indicate that by 2100 thawing permafrost could boost emissions of the potent greenhouse gas 20 to 40 percent beyond what would be produced by all natural and man-made sources."

"The question grips us—and many scientists and policy makers—because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, packing 25 times more heating power, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. If the permafrost thaws rapidly because of global warming worldwide, the planet could get hotter more quickly than most models now predict."

 

Groan.... It's a pay site; but I enjoyed the article in the print version if there are any questions or....

...visit your local library....

 

~

 

p.s. ...did anyony see the report about the melting glaciers on Mt. Everest? Neat pictures of giant sinkholes nearby the glaciers, and caves under the glaciers....

[Michaelangelica]

10,000 emails, 90% of which data is in the public domain anyway.

Dealing with compartaive temperature measurements that have changed dramatically in technology since fareinheight invented measurement 100 years ago.

You Kangroo Court the scientist, accuse him/them of being cheats and hang them without trial.

(I would hate anyone to go though my last 10,000 emails looking for inconsistencies.)

Is that how science is done at Hypography?

[Michaelangelica]

I like that George wants Phil Jone's head on a platter, throw him under a bus and let the B-Team take over, but we need to dig deeper. There's bad science happening here, we need to get to the bottom of it. We need to put bad scientists out of work, so this stuff doesn't happen. I rely on good science, and we haven't seen much of that.

Do you mean George Monbiot?

What article were you reading?

Where does he mention Phil Jone's (sic.)?

The journalist George Monbiot was speculating on the causes of the puzzling cognitive processes (and dissonance? ) of Climate Change Denialists.

[lawcat]

Global Warming conlcusions can be viewed as a form of fear inciting.

 

The carbon pollution and global warming, while related, should be kept separate. Most people understand that pollution is bad and should be eliminated. The secondary effect of pollution control is is the continuing investment in alternative energy sources which is good for economy and good for environment.

 

But when you try to tie conclusions about speculative findings in global warming to pollution, that is when problems arise. There is no reason not to reserve judgment about global warming, but still pursue avenues to elimante pollution, create cleaner environment, and produce better energy resources for reasons other than to reduce "global warming."

[BrianG]

Do you mean George Monbiot?

What article were you reading?

Where does he mention Phil Jone's (sic.)?

The journalist George Monbiot was speculating on the causes of the puzzling cognitive processes (and dissonance? ) of Climate Change Denialists.

Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

I don't read Monbiot, only his blog cited above.

[Cedars]

 

ps i don't have a side in this; just saw a geology question is all.

 

http://energy.usgs.gov/images/gashydrates/MallikLocationLG.gif

 

Its continental shelf area.

[BrianG]

Is [ce]CO2[/ce] a pollutant? We put it in food and drink, do we do that with any other pollutant?

[BrianG]

It turns out, Global Warming really is Mann made.

[lemit]

Your comparing library card catalog with this???

 

Edit: I would also point out the analogy is flawed because the raw data (the books themselves) are still available in the library.

/edit

Allow me to offer a counter point:

 

When I worked for the state, with data retention laws, we went through a computer upgrade of our data, data that was backed up by microfische (microfilm). Now countless runs were made checking data to make sure the migration worked (yes there were still errors, and yes we uncovered many even after the migration was finished, on some record fields), and the original DB was securely backed up twice, once on tape, and the original was copied to provide the DB used in migration. There was no destruction of original DB files during the whole programming process.

 

So to increase work area the process began to figure out how to dump the microfische. Original records are not to be destroyed, no getting around that. Our office manager spend a bunch of time trying to find a home for the microfische, Historical societies, museums, etc. No one wanted it so it was impossible to get rid of the microfische. Its still there taking up room

 

 

You really should visit a library. You would see that the card catalog is gone. It was not in any way a duplication of the information contained in the books. It was a guide to the location of the books. The Library of Congress has developed uniform standards and backup capabilities that allow all libraries to throw away their card catalogs once they've gone through a painstaking process of verification. I would challenge you to find a card catalog now. Pretty much all of them have been replaced by online resources.

 

Also, it would seem that you didn't work with microfiche long enough to learn how to spell it. I was a state preservation and microforms specialist, and worked in libraries through four different iterations of automation. I had very high standards of data retention since many of the materials I had custodial responsibility for were priceless historical documents. I fought for retention of data with multiple backups, and would then occasionally allow the bulkiest--the paper--materials to be discarded.

 

I've seen nothing in the East Anglia emails that would give me pause. If you see passages that trouble you, please post the numbers of those emails. I'll be happy to take a look at them.

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[Cedars]

You really should visit a library. You would see that the card catalog is gone. It was not in any way a duplication of the information contained in the books. It was a guide to the location of the books. The Library of Congress has developed uniform standards and backup capabilities that allow all libraries to throw away their card catalogs once they've gone through a painstaking process of verification. I would challenge you to find a card catalog now. Pretty much all of them have been replaced by online resources.

You seem to have mis-interpreted my point. Like totally.

Also, it would seem that you didn't work with microfiche long enough to learn how to spell it.

Ah, the best you can do.

You should try using speel check yourself Lemit.

 

I was a state preservation and microforms specialist, and worked in libraries through four different iterations of automation. I had very high standards of data retention since many of the materials I had custodial responsibility for were priceless historical documents. I fought for retention of data with multiple backups, and would then occasionally allow the bulkiest--the paper--materials to be discarded.

Yeah, I wish the people at East Anglia had those kinda standards. I cannot believe they would throw out the RAW data! And not have a back up! wow. Unbelievable. You would think in the 1980's (as they claim was when it happened) they would have filmed it before tossing the originals in the trash. Or maybe contacted other universities, or historical societies, or museums to see if they wanted the RAW data, or something like that.

But noooo.

I've seen nothing in the East Anglia emails that would give me pause. If you see passages that trouble you, please post the numbers of those emails. I'll be happy to take a look at them.

ummm, yeah, ok... I'll get back to you on that.

 

Thanks,

Cedars

[BrianG]

India doesn't want to cut emissions:

 

India will not sign binding emission cuts-minister | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters

[Michaelangelica]

India doesn't want to cut emissions:

 

India will not sign binding emission cuts-minister | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters

Because they see the USA as the main cause of our environmental problems?

[BrianG]

Perhaps reducing CO2 emissions would be more effective reducing the United States' power and standing, than actually changing climate. According to the Climategate files, the consensus is built on a conspiracy to keep dissenting research out of journals and unduly influencing the IPCC.

 

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times